[mamos]

Trinidad, on 2011-September-14, 11:35, said:

I myself wouldn't dream of doing anything but pass. My preemptive overcall is very descriptive. Partner knows that I have a ton of clubs and decides to play 4♠. No reason at all to doubt his decision.

Rik

I think it should be clear that no competent TD would allow the 5♣ bid in this auction. North bid 3♣ believing it was a pre-empt in Clubs. South (unpassed) then called 4♠ after alerting the 3♣ bid and explaining the 3♣ bid as Clubs and Spades. That alert and explanation (or for that matter an alert even without an explanation) are/is UI and Law 16 explains very clearly what actions are open to the player who receives UI from his partner.
Here the meaning of the UI is very clear. NS have had a cock-up and it will be clearly better to bid 5♣. Where a choice of calls is suggested by UI a player must not choose that call if "a significant proportion of players would seriously consider an alternative" and "some of those who consider it would choose it" (Paraphrasing I know but anyone who wants to, can read Law 16 for themselves)

The point is that a player without UI can bid however they like, but a player with UI is constrained by Law 16. We know some players would seriously consider Pass (add me to that list) and we know some players would Pass (add me to that list) so 5♣ becomes an illegal choice. Please, please don't tell me you'd always bid 5♣, anyone who passes is a fool etc etc, none of that is relevant to the ruling. Some players would seriously consider Pass and some would Pass - that is all that matters.

Back to the OP - is Pass of partner's 5♣ bid legal? The answer is probably yes if you have no UI or if partner has no history of this sort of thing - it will depend on TD's investigation. But it won't matter much because partner has already made an illegal call and the TD will adjust on that basis

Mike Amos

[alphatango]

mamos, on 2011-September-15, 03:40, said:

Some players would seriously consider Pass and some would Pass - that is all that matters.

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

[lamford]

alphatango, on 2011-September-15, 08:11, said:

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

But presumably even for them this hand is much better than their minimum WJO, and they have at least two potential tricks in Four Spades. How can Pass not be an LA when you have UI?

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-September-13, 07:36, said:

I guess pass is not a logical alternative to 5♣,

If you are using guess in the sense: "To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information", then which bit of extra information do you need to decide whether Pass is an LA? A poll of loonies who would overcall 3♣?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 08:42, said:

How can Pass not be an LA when you have UI?

This seems like a rather confused question. If it's not an LA, it's not an LA.

(I'm not commenting on the hand in question here, just disagreeing with the idea that something that's not an LA becomes one in the presence of UI).

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2011-September-14, 15:21, said:

No reason? How about the fact that your club suit is 1 or 2 cards longer than you've promised, and you have a spade void? While it's possible that his spades are as good as your clubs, what's the chance of it?

Isn't there an old adage to never put down an 8-card suit in dummy (although I suspect they made that up before transfers were invented)?

What makes you think that the club suit is 1 or 2 cards longer than promised? Sure, you would have bid 4♣, rather than 3 and I would have done the same. But this particular player obviously isn't as "daring" as we are. He seems to be a believer of the rule of 1, 2 and 3 which more or less automatically requires him to have 8 fairly solid clubs for his 3♣ bid.

He should realize that his partner knows this too and nevertheless decided to bid 4♠ based on his own hand of which the 3♣ bidder knows nothing, nada, zip.

In The Netherlands (a nation of tradesmen), there is a bridge wisdom that roughly translates to: "A preempt can only be sold once." In English I would say that bidding a preempt twice is horrible bridge. You describe your hand at once and you stick with it.

But obviously al this changes when you know that partner doesn't hold the spades that you should think he has...

Rik

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2011-September-15, 09:19, said:

This seems like a rather confused question. If it's not an LA, it's not an LA.

(I'm not commenting on the hand in question here, just disagreeing with the idea that something that's not an LA becomes one in the presence of UI).

Exactly. FIRST you determine the LAs, THEN you decide which are suggested over the others by the UI, and prohibit choosing them. Otherwise, the reasoning becomes circular. Most importantly, if there's only one LA, the UI is irrelevant.

So if the TD decides "no one in his right mind would pass", the UI doesn't force you to act crazy. As with Gordon, I'm not saying this is the case on this hand, just explaining the general principle.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 08:45, said:

If you are using guess in the sense: "To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information", then which bit of extra information do you need to decide whether Pass is an LA? A poll of loonies who would overcall 3♣?

It was a guess in the sense of an opening gambit in a discussion/consultation I might have with a fellow TD. We often allow people to rebid eight card suits when partner tries to play in the rebidder's void.

That initial post was thinking out loud; as indictated by "but" and then two reasons why one might pass.

As it was, that initial post crossed with blackshoe who said Pass was not a logical alternative. So my guess was right in the sense that some might think the Pass was not a logical alternative.

[aguahombre]

So, in summary from the posts I agree with:

This 3C bidder chose 3C, believing that to be his most descriptive bid. Whether he is luny does not apply; I only put that in because I agree

This 3C bidder might or might not have masterminded and rebid 5C after pard's signoff in 4S, but he does so illegally with the UI.

Whether OP should pass 5C doesn't really matter any more; he can do what he wants. He has no UI, and his partner has already screwed the pooch by misbidding according to their agreements and bidding again when 5C is suggested by the UI.

Director gets to decide how high the auction would get (in spades). If he asked input from me (doubtful), I would offer 6S.

[AlexJonson]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-15, 10:45, said:

So, in summary from the posts I agree with:

This 3C bidder chose 3C, believing that to be his most descriptive bid. Whether he is luny does not apply; I only put that in because I agree
...

I've often seen the argument that 'players who bid x (3C say) must think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'.

I don't believe it, neither for 'poor' players nor for strong players 'walking the dog'.

[blackshoe]

Not that it matters much, but I think "disallow" is a better word than "prohibit" with respect to what happens if a player with UI chooses a suggested LA.

[RMB1]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-15, 11:35, said:

I've often seen the argument that 'players who bid x (3C say) must think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'.

I don't believe it, neither for 'poor' players nor for strong players 'walking the dog'.

But some of the peers of 'players who bid x' are players who 'think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'. Ususually that means that bidding how those peers would bid is a logical alternative.

[nigel_k]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-15, 11:35, said:

I've often seen the argument that 'players who bid x (3C say) must think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'.

I don't believe it, neither for 'poor' players nor for strong players 'walking the dog'.

I strongly agree with this. Does anyone seriously believe the player would have preempted at the three level if their suit was a major? The choice of 3♣ was not an indication of the limit to which the player is willing to go. It was either a misguided attempt to keep 3NT in the picture or an even more misguided attempt to avoid pushing opponents into game. Bad players do these kind of things all the time and directors and committees in general attach far too much weight to it.

[Trinidad]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-15, 11:35, said:

I've often seen the argument that 'players who bid x (3C say) must think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'.

I don't believe it, neither for 'poor' players nor for strong players 'walking the dog'.

In general, it is a very poor strategy to preempt and bid again. The aim of a preempt is to give the opponents a difficult choice with little room ro work with. If you bid again after your preempt you will achieve two things:
- You throw away your good score if they made the wrong choice. (Remember that of all people at the table partner is best placed to know which of the opponents possible choices is the correct one.)
- You turn a difficult choice into an easy one. The opponents have made a decision and have exchanged information. Now you decide to bid one more. It doesn't have any effect since the opponents already know what they are doing, i.e. one of them knows whether he was happy with his partner's choice or not. When he doesn't like his partner's choice he will certainly double and take the money. Your opponents get to have their cake and eat it too.

That also shows what type of hands are good for walking the dog. These are hands where you expect to be doubled and think that you will make it anyway. (Against decent players this rarely works since they know how to evaluate their hands. They won't double you when you are walking the dog. Instead you have given them the room to find their own best contract. But against lesser players this tactic might work.)

If you look at this particular hand you will see that it is unfit for walking the dog. You would do that on a hand with which you bid 3♣, but you think that you can make 5♣. This hand doesn't fit that.

When South bids 4♠, he should have a hand that looks like the North hand, something like: ♠AKJxxxxxx ♥xxx ♦- ♣x. There is no reason to run from 4♠, if South holds the hand that he is supposed to have.

But the UI tells you that he doesn't have the hand that he is supposed to have.

Rik