[barmar]

If some of the posters are peers of East, then the fact that several of them think 3♦ is appropriate makes it an LA. An overwhelming concensus isn't required.

[c_corgi]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-22, 05:51, said:

on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA. And that's without ascribing any particular meaning to N's 2NT bid, whatever that might be showing in this auction: the fact that N's prepared to commit N/S to the 3 level coupled with S's strong ♣ opener surely makes it too likely that -800's on the cards. E has just 1 trick and enough trumps to guarantee an 8-card fit, and that's all.

That is all? The queen of spades is an important card here even if the LTC doesn't account for it. East's club suit is a powerful combination, far better than its loser count. xx xxx xxxx Kxxx is a 10 loser hand, to treat East's hand as the same value is way off.

[PeterAlan]

barmar, on 2012-May-22, 07:36, said:

If some of the posters are peers of East, then the fact that several of them think 3♦ is appropriate makes it an LA. An overwhelming concensus isn't required.

But the posters don't seem to have applied themselves to the question of what methods E/W were playing. If E/W are playing Truscott or similar (ie W's hand may well be quite limited and no more than 4-4 in ♠ & ♦), then those polled should take this into account, and then, to repeat myself, I don't think that 3♦ is a LA.

[PeterAlan]

c_corgi, on 2012-May-22, 07:42, said:

That is all? The queen of spades is an important card here even if the LTC doesn't account for it. East's club suit is a powerful combination, far better than its loser count. xx xxx xxxx Kxxx is a 10 loser hand, to treat East's hand as the same value is way off.

Oh, I agree as 10-loser hands go it's quite a good one but that still doesn't make 3♦ a reasonable bid in my book. And that ♣ combination loses some of its strength with S quite likely to hold KQ. We can go into the +s and -s in all sorts of detail, but I was just trying to give a quick view on why 3♦ is not for me.

To give you some idea, let's swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give essentially the hand she bid. Modifying N/S acordingly, we might well have something like

---

That's 3♦ -5 by E.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2012-May-22, 06:59, said:

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts, and that was what I was hoping to get some information on. The responses have been fairly evenly split. No adjusted score was awarded.

vixTD's assessment seems to accord with the judgement of the majority of posters. Nevertheless, as Barmer points out, what if a significant minority of those polled regard 3♦ as an LA? For example, I may be a hopeless bidder but I would bid at least 3♦ so I agree with CC that 3♦ is an LA. I suspect that 4♦ and 5♦ are also LAs.

[c_corgi]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-22, 07:56, said:

To give you some idea, let's swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give essentially the hand she bid. Modifying N/S acordingly, we might well have something like

---

That's 3♦ -5 by E.

Or we may find that South bids 3H over 3D, or they don't defend double dummy, or that West's honour structure is less unsuitable, or that North doesn't have an obvious double of 3D.

[phil_20686]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-22, 05:51, said:

If they are, then at this vulnerability it would be quite normal for W to bid on 4-4 - it's not a 5-5, maybe 5-4, type 2-suiter - and I'm with bluejak (congratulations on winning the event BTW) in thinking that to bid 3♦ on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA.

The idea of bidding over a strong club with a balanced 44 hand is making me quite ill - is it just to make sure that partner can never guess what level to raise to? Also, most of these defences keep a natural 1M overcall, so I presume that if they were 54 it has to be a longer minor. Bidding this way with 54 either way round is making me more ill.

Still, its obvious from the fact that (s)he did bid that this a hand they consider ok, in which case surely 3d is not a logical alternative.

[mycroft]

2NT has shown a balanced positive with pointed-suit cards, but not wild enough to try for a double at us favourable? And I'm still going to stick my neck out with 9-fourth and a queen that's going to be crashed? I like pushing to 3-of-a-fit, but in this auction what information does N-S not have, so how likely are they going to guess wrong?

So, count me as a passer in the 3♦ poll. Oh, and I agree on everything else - sometimes misbids work; unless of course, E/W (I'm guessing West) have a history of getting this one wrong; and I can't see forcing East to continue either spades or diamonds on the play - and hearts looks self-defeating.

Interesting that the other strong clubbers chose to treat this as a maximum 1♦ opening, and they *still* couldn't get to 4♠ (without use of UI :-). Guess it's just a death hand for Precision.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2012-May-22, 11:56, said:

2NT has shown a balanced positive with pointed-suit cards, but not wild enough to try for a double at us favourable? And I'm still going to stick my neck out with 9-fourth and a queen that's going to be crashed? I like pushing to 3-of-a-fit, but in this auction what information does N-S not have, so how likely are they going to guess wrong?
So, count me as a passer in the 3♦ poll. Oh, and I agree on everything else - sometimes misbids work; unless of course, E/W (I'm guessing West) have a history of getting this one wrong; and I can't see forcing East to continue either spades or diamonds on the play - and hearts looks self-defeating. Interesting that the other strong clubbers chose to treat this as a maximum 1♦ opening, and they *still* couldn't get to 4♠ (without use of UI :-). Guess it's just a death hand for Precision.

FWIW (probably not much) West's dilemma is posted as a a poll in Interesting Bridge hands

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 16:47, said:

FWIW (probably not much) West's dilemma is posted as a a poll in Interesting Bridge hands

(Actually, I think it's East's.)

Law 16 B 1(b) said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

(my emphasis).

To repeat a point made earlier, a poll is surely meaningless in the absence of knowing what methods E/W are playing. I've said it looks to me as though they may well be playing Truscott as a defence to a strong 1♣, since that uses 1NT as the overcall to show ♦ & ♠ and is a relatively common defence here (I played in the event in question - it's Board 34 if anyone's interested). Partner and I play it, though it doesn't come up that much where we play, and if you're not employing it regularly it's easy to get the non-touching 2-suiter bids the wrong way round. I'd put money on that being what's happened here - W was trying to show ♥ & ♣ and got it wrong.

If this is what's going on, then 3♦ does not seem to me to be a LA.

Let's look at the auction if W hasn't misbid (as in my post above, swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give the hand she showed in the auction). If your methods are to put in a call like this on a hand like W's what does 3♦ by E over 2NT by N achieve? You've already created about as much disruption to N/S's auction as you're likely to manage, you're hardly taking away any bidding space, and you're putting your head on the block if N/S have very suitable hands for penalties.

Of course, if E/W are playing something different - say, W's guaranteeing 5-5 - then the picture changes and it may well be helpful for E to show support (though the evidence of W's bid is that not what's happening here). So until we know what their methods are, the question of whether 3♦ by E is a LA must remain moot.

[nige1]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-22, 17:46, said:

(Actually, I think it's East's.) (my emphasis).

My mistake Sorry

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-22, 17:46, said:

To repeat a point made earlier, a poll is surely meaningless in the absence of knowing what methods E/W are playing. I've said it looks to me as though they may well be playing Truscott as a defence to a strong 1♣, since that uses 1NT as the overcall to show ♦ & ♠ and is a relatively common defence here (I played in the event in question - it's Board 34 if anyone's interested). Partner and I play it, though it doesn't come up that much where we play, and if you're not employing it regularly it's easy to get the non-touching 2-suiter bids the wrong way round. I'd put money on that being what's happened here - W was trying to show ♥ & ♣ and got it wrong.
estion of whether 3♦ by E is a LA must remain moot.

Presumably, the director ruled on the information given in the OP, we can assume that is all the relevant information that was available, and we can make our minds up accordingly. My guess is the same as Peter Alan's: "Truscott". East's explanation implies that "♠ and ♦" is their complete understanding. On that basis,

• Peter Alan would pass.
• I respect the opinions of Peter Alan and Blujak but I wouldn't Pass.
• I would consider 3♣ or 3♦ or 3♠ or 4♦.
• Hence I think Pass and 3♦ are logical alternatives.

[MrAce]

I came to this topic after i voted because the poll said not to come here and check untill after vote.

I voted for 4♦ with the condition that 1NT promised 5-5, i added if it can be 5-4 i would bid 3♦

I would think pass is out of question by East, but i saw 2 votes for pass in the poll and a few here too so it may at most be a L.A. But still way far from being obvious pass, since i saw 8 votes for 3♦ and 2 votes for 4♦. Looking at it now that 1 NT can be made on 5-4 you can change my vote from 4♦ to 3♦.

If pd is bidding with 4-4 and more into joke than bridge, i would definetely make sure to raise him untill he gives up doing it.

At these colours pd is showing 2 suiter and i have a fit and i wont show it ? Especially with Hx in his side suit and 4 card support ? I have been listening to the excuses people come up with for not supporting their pd with support long time now, that i decided not to even argue with them anymore and just wish them good luck.

[Zelandakh]

FWiiW I would seriously consider 3♦ but actually pass. The reason is that we have lost the main benefit of it when the opps have already reached 2NT. After the UI I would bid 3♦ though. I am confident that a high enough proportion of players would satisfy the seriously consider criteria here and I still suspect enough would get the actually bid it. But this is what a poll is for so luckily we do not need to guess or decide based on our own ideas.

I am surprised that the TD appears to have made this decision without consultation. If responses to a poll were indeed "fairly evenly split" then 3♦ is absolutely a LA! If I had to guess (and like I said, luckily that is not necessary) I would suggest that at least half of [county level] players would seriously consider 3♦ and perhaps 1 in 10 or so actually bid it. Interestingly I would suspect that weaker [lower club level] players would be less likely to consider or bid 3♦ while stronger players would perhaps all consider 3♦ but I suspect fewer would actually bid it. Given West's reaction it is not impossible that E-W fall into the "weaker" category which could easily affect the poll results. In this case I have (somewhat) more sympathy with the TD's decision.

[Trinidad]

I would already say that a 3♦ bid "could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI" over the LA of 4♦. If East would have bid merely 3♦, I would adjust to 4♦X - 1 more, and judge that it might be hard to evaluate at the table whether 4♦ would be an LA. Therefore, I would leave it at that.

But given that East passed, I would go beyond an adjustment to 4♦X-n. While it may be hard to evaluate whether 4♦ could be an LA, it is impossible to think that supporting diamonds at some level would not be an LA. East must have known that by passing he chose an LA that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. I would add a PP. This could be in the form of a warning if East would be inexperienced, but -given the fact that EW have agreements on how to interfere with strong club auctions- I think it is unlikely that that is the case.

If you don't even adjust the score in such a case (as seemed to have happened in practice) you are actively breeding unethical players: You will teach players to take the unethical action (pass).
- They might get to keep their good result. The unethical action will have won.
- They might get "unlucky" and the TD will adjust to the result they would have obtained if they would have taken the ethical action. The unethical action will not have lost.
The net gain for being unethical is large. This will make it very hard for many players to remain ethical.

In general, I am very careful in handing out PPs in UI cases: It is often difficult to judge at the table what the LAs are. IMO it doesn't send the right message if you penalize someone who has tried his best, but was not able to envision at the table what his peers might consider LAs.
But this means that if the case is blatantly obvious (and how can raising partner in a non constructive auction, at favorable vul, not be an LA?) you will have to give a PP on top of the AS. Otherwise you will be breeding unethical players.

I can understand that people think there are arguments why you shouldn't raise diamonds. (There always are.) I can even understand that there are people who at the table wouldn't raise diamonds. But that is irrelevant. The criterion is whether raising diamonds is an LA. With four card support, raising partner always is an LA, particularly in a non constructive auction (like this one) at favorable vulnerability.

Rik

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 19:00, said:

East's explanation implies that "♠ and ♦" is their complete understanding.

I think we're given a bit more than that in the OP: in particular, that their methods countenance a two-suited overcall on W's ♠43 ♥A743 ♦Q3 ♣K9876.

Trinidad, on 2012-May-23, 02:46, said:

The criterion is whether raising diamonds is an LA. With four card support, raising partner always is an LA ...

The thing is, this sort of slogan just becomes self-fulfilling: if enough players believe it then it is by definition true. But it's based on the unstated and probably unrecognised assumption that W has something different from what W, I stress again, has actually shown in the methods that the partnership appear to be playing. All these comments seem to me to be from players who don't play these methods and don't understand them. Playing Truscott commits you to the 2-level in one of your suits in order to be disruptive; going beyond that is a different kettle of fish.

Bidding 3♦ on ♠Q3 ♥765 ♦9865 ♣AJ102 opposite ♠K9876 ♥Q3 ♦A743 ♣43 (ie the hand W has shown) when LHO has opened a strong ♣ and RHO has bid 2NT over partner's interference is not in my view a logical (small l) alternative. It does nothing to obstruct N/S's constructive auction, and just gives them a "Head I win, Tails you lose" chance to extract 800+ if they have great defence to a ♦ contract. Once that's recognised, it's not a Logical Alternative either.

[c_corgi]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-23, 04:12, said:

Bidding 3♦ on ♠Q3 ♥765 ♦9865 ♣AJ102 opposite ♠K9876 ♥Q3 ♦A743 ♣43 (ie the hand W has shown) when LHO has opened a strong ♣ and RHO has bid 2NT over partner's interference is not in my view a logical (small l) alternative. It does nothing to obstruct N/S's constructive auction, and just gives them a "Head I win, Tails you lose" chance to extract 800+ if they have great defence to a ♦ contract. Once that's recognised, it's not a Logical Alternative either.

According to you, 3D is down 5 on this layout. That means 2D is down 4, or -800 when the 1NT overcaller hits partner with a 4 card fit, a key Q and a well-supported ace. It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that the 1NT overcall should not be made on silly hands rather than that responder should suppress the fit. Certainly I see no reason to assume that the West hand is anything other than the 'unsuitable' end of the range. I expect it is too late to find out where in the range the West hand is. I am not sure how valid is your assertion that the objective is to take the 1-level away from responder: my understanding that the most effective way to defend against strong clubs is for advancer to be able to bounce to the 3-level as often as possible.

According to me, 3D is down 3 if they lead AKJ of hearts, or down 4 if South does well to play the QD before the 3rd round of H (this is because North holds the D10). Since you have hardly placed the cards to be favourable for 3D, that doesn't seem too bad odds. If they are going to catch you for 800 very often, they are also going to let you out for 500 frequently, either through misdefence or because the cards lie less favourably for them.

Of course, the real benefit of 3D will be to suggest a good save for partner to take. This is FAR more important than the occasional 800. No matter how feeble and usuitable West can be for the overcall, she is also going to bid it on KJxxx x KQxxx xx, which will have to defend 4H without help from East.

It is not even true to say that 3D takes away no useful bidding space. While it is unlikely that N/S will want to play in clubs, there is a reasonable chance that clubs is South's primary suit, and that the inability to show it at the 3 level will inhibit them from judging the auction as effectively. Depriving them of a cue-bid of 3D is also of significant value.

[bluejak]

c_corgi, on 2012-May-21, 20:47, said:

Can you explain why? 3D looks completely normal to me and allows partner to compete further if suitable. How is partner supposed to save, having already shown a 2-suiter, if we don't tell her about the fit? FWIW I think it is way closer to 4D than pass even though 4D is a definite stretch.

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

---

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

[c_corgi]

bluejak, on 2012-May-23, 05:56, said:

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

---

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

Crikey, if that is fairly normal then I can see why you don't bid 3D, but if that is normal then words such as bizarre can be stricken from the dictionary, for they will never be used. If that is 1100 at the 3 level it is 800 at the 2 level when it gets what is a pretty suitable East hand opposite.

[PeterAlan]

c_corgi, on 2012-May-23, 05:50, said:

According to you, 3D is down 5 on this layout. That means 2D is down 4, or -800 when the 1NT overcaller hits partner with a 4 card fit, a key Q and a well-supported ace. It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that the 1NT overcall should not be made on silly hands rather than that responder should suppress the fit. Certainly I see no reason to assume that the West hand is anything other than the 'unsuitable' end of the range. I expect it is too late to find out where in the range the West hand is. I am not sure how valid is your assertion that the objective is to take the 1-level away from responder: my understanding that the most effective way to defend against strong clubs is for advancer to be able to bounce to the 3-level as often as possible.

I'm not arguing in favour of these methods - I'm arguing that if they're being played then 3♦ is not a sensible bid.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-23, 05:50, said:

According to me, 3D is down 3 if they lead AKJ of hearts, or down 4 if South does well to play the QD before the 3rd round of H (this is because North holds the D10). Since you have hardly placed the cards to be favourable for 3D, that doesn't seem too bad odds. If they are going to catch you for 800 very often, they are also going to let you out for 500 frequently, either through misdefence or because the cards lie less favourably for them.

It's 5 down on a top ♥ lead and a ♦ switch overtaken by N. I'm not claiming that double dummy defence is that easy to find, but once dummy's displayed it's surely clear that trumps are 4-4 and N/S want to draw them. I didn't spend any real time trying to manufacture a particular hand, I just switched W's cards around and adjusted N/S's to fit, giving N 4 ♦ (a) to fit the 2NT overcall and (b) to fit an auction where N/S decide to penalise rather than bid on. You can give N a ♦ fewer and a ♠ more and it's still -4 on best defence, but N/S might bid on then.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-23, 05:50, said:

Of course, the real benefit of 3D will be to suggest a good save for partner to take. This is FAR more important than the occasional 800. No matter how feeble and usuitable West can be for the overcall, she is also going to bid it on KJxxx x KQxxx xx, which will have to defend 4H without help from East.

If you're looking for saves opposite that type of hand, play methods that show that type of hand and not others as well. Otherwise, it's just a lottery.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-23, 05:50, said:

It is not even true to say that 3D takes away no useful bidding space. While it is unlikely that N/S will want to play in clubs, there is a reasonable chance that clubs is South's primary suit, and that the inability to show it at the 3 level will inhibit them from judging the auction as effectively. Depriving them of a cue-bid of 3D is also of significant value.

A very thin justification for a risky action - not good odds at pairs. If N's got the pointed suits for the 2NT bid, who's got the ♥ except S? ♣ won't be his primary suit.

I won't prolong the argument further, but my point remains: most of the justifications for a raise to 3♦ are implicitly based on playing different methods, whether the proponents realise it or not.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-23, 01:37, said:

I am surprised that the TD appears to have made this decision without consultation.

Where do you get this idea? Do we really have to state the obvious? Of course I didn't rule without consultation.