[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-05, 18:10, said:

One of the problems is opener's strength.

The other problem is that 6NT is the "let's end this misery" bid. It prevents all kinds of troubles by taking matters in your own hand. You take partner out of the picture, avoiding the consequences that the misunderstanding (that you only know of through the UI) might have.

I don't know much about these players, but I know what I would do. I would set clubs as trumps. I want to get into a cuebidding sequence and I want to find out whether 7♣ or 7NT might be a good contract. The way to do that is by bidding 3♣ (GF in this sequence when playing weak NTs) and involving partner.

Even when you generally like blasting, you cannot maintain that trying for a constructive auction is not an LA. And 6NT is demonstrably suggested over 3♣ by the UI, so the 6NT bid is an infraction.

Rik

3 things:

1: I'm never, ever bidding 3♣ (which many people play as minimum ish even though I agree 2N is GF and this is not best), 3♥ is the obvious start particularly if 2♣ denies 4M if you're getting scientific.
2: Choosing to blast 6N at pairs is utterly normal rather than pinpointing the lead. It's entirely possible you have 13 tricks if opps don't find their ace or AK. This can easily be a hand where partner has no diamond card, and you are getting a bottom if you use any science and tell the opps this, say KQx, KQx, Qx, KJxxx or KQJ, KQx, xxx, KJxx or KQJx, KQ, Kxx, Kxxx, . While 5♣= may be par, it won't score well unless the opening leader has AK♦.
3: If you decide you want to bid 3♥ and you don't know what 3♠ would mean over this (diamond stop no spade stop or spade card looking for club slam ?) in an unpracticed partnership, you may want to avoid the murk for reasons unconnected with the infraction.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-December-05, 10:06, said:

Even without extensive discussion, I doubt he would rebid 2NT with a low singleton.

Why? Almost all of the books from my youth that introduced inverted minors to Acol players said that this 2NT call showed major stops and did not promise extras. None of them said that it showed a balanced hand. Differentiating by hand type over an inverted 2m raise is a more recent improvement. So it might depend on how old they are or what is regarded as Standard in their area. This is precisely why I asked about the meaning of 2NT - there are many possibilities and which E-W think applies might affect the validity of the 6NT bid.

The problem here is that everyone seems to be assuming that 2NT means 15+ balanced, when the OP has specifically stated that it does not. Indeed, if West does assume this meaning then 3♣ is surely the LA not suggested by the UI. If 2NT does not show extras then 3♣ is not a LA; but now 6NT is blatantly using the UI. Either way, I find the 6NT bid highly questionable.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-06, 02:24, said:

The problem here is that everyone seems to be assuming that 2NT means 15+ balanced, when the OP has specifically stated that it does not. Indeed, if West does assume this meaning then 3♣ is surely the LA not suggested by the UI. If 2NT does not show extras then 3♣ is not a LA; but now 6NT is blatantly using the UI. Either way, I find the 6NT bid highly questionable.

Err where:

Quoted from post 3

Quote

Opposite an inverted raise it could be a fair bit weaker, perhaps 15+.

[StevenG]

I don't think VixTD specified the scoring anywhere. If this is MPs, is 6♣ such a good contract?

[helene_t]

StevenG, on 2012-December-06, 03:22, said:

I don't think VixTD specified the scoring anywhere. If this is MPs, is 6♣ such a good contract?

Yes he specified that it was MP.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 03:08, said:

Quoted from post 3

Quoted from post 3 is their agreement:
"Undiscussed."

The comment about 15+ is one possible meaning. I do not see why we assume this one without further evidence.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-06, 05:53, said:

Quoted from post 3 is their agreement:
"Undiscussed."

The comment about 15+ is one possible meaning. I do not see why we assume this one without further evidence.

It is also the only meaning I've ever seen played in a weak no trump acol context in nearly 40 years of bridge unless another relay bid is being used. In EBU land unless some other relay is used (we use 2♦) I would suggest that 99% of people play it as some form of 15+ and you'd assume 15+ bal if you hadn't agreed something else.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-05, 16:00, said:

I disagree with this, for many people 2N is 16-17 invitational over the weak 2♣ raise and 15-19 (or 17-19) GF opposite the inverted one assuming a weak no trump so what's the problem.

That's what I said (or intended): The minimum for 2NT is lower over inverted raise than over a weak raise.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-December-06, 07:07, said:

That's what I said (or intended): The minimum for 2NT is lower over inverted raise than over a weak raise.

Yes it is, but for many people the maximum is lower over the weak raise. If 2N was what you bid on any balanced hand shy of a 2N opener (which is not an uncommon way of playing it), and opener actually has 19 (where he'd bid 3N over the weak raise), they may have missed 7♣/N so is bidding 6N suggested ? Also I have known 3N as 15-16 and 2N as 17-19 pretty commonly too, in which case 2N is better than over the weak 2♣.

[blackshoe]

I don't think discussing the merits of various meanings for 2NT helps us make a ruling when the offending pair has no agreed meaning to the bid. Or, for that matter, when they do.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 10:19, said:

I don't think discussing the merits of various meanings for 2NT helps us make a ruling when the offending pair has no agreed meaning to the bid. Or, for that matter, when they do.

It sort of does, and this is an interesting question.

I think you need to ask W what he thought E's range for 2N over his inverted 2♣ was, although it may be undiscussed, W would have a vision in his head for what he was bidding 6N opposite.

If he said 17-19 (where it's better than over the weak bid), that's very different to if he says 15-16 (where it's weaker), or if he said 15-19 (where it's pretty random whether it's weaker or stronger).

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 00:56, said:

1: I'm never, ever bidding 3♣ (which many people play as minimum ish even though I agree 2N is GF and this is not best), 3♥ is the obvious start particularly if 2♣ denies 4M if you're getting scientific.

Fine with me. I was basically arguing that "not-blasting" was an LA. How you chose to "not blast" is another discussion.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 00:56, said:

2: Choosing to blast 6N at pairs is utterly normal rather than pinpointing the lead.

Blasting 6NT may be utterly normal -I like blasting myself- but that is not the criterion. The criterion is whether there is an LA. I would say that in the choice: "Blast vs Science" science usually is an LA. This is no acception.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 00:56, said:

3: If you decide you want to bid 3♥ and you don't know what 3♠ would mean over this (diamond stop no spade stop or spade card looking for club slam ?) in an unpracticed partnership, you may want to avoid the murk for reasons unconnected with the infraction.

Which is why I would have bid 3♣: It's not as murky as 3♥.

But again, "may want to avoid the murk" is fine, but not when you have UI that says that you will have murk. And in this case, there may be a little bit of murk unconnected with the infraction, but there is an awful lot more murk connected to the infraction.

Rik

[mycroft]

Heh, OT, but last night I had J 8xx AJTxx Kxxx unfavourable at IMPs, playing K/S with invm Limit+. I chose not to bid 2♣ because of exactly this discussion - I would want to bid 3♣ over 2NT 15-17 not GF. As it turns out it would have worked better as partner had a 3♣ response to 1♦, and 6♣ was cold (and easy to find after 1♣-2♣, but we managed to survive it after the opponents decided to push us in spades, and eventually bid 5-over-5.

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2012-December-05, 15:43, said:

To be more precise, I think most would consider both inviting and blasting to be LAs. The UI makes blasting more likely to be right, which is why it's not allowed.

I thought the UI made the grand more likely and responder giving up on that with all those controls to be doing their duty albeit without the hindsight. Wrong thinking but I have no ethical concerns and don't tend to punish in such circumstances.

With those controls I think responder did their duty giving up on the grand in the context of how I interpret the strength of the 2nt bid absent the UI. With the UI I would have serious reservations on a delicate auction that got to a making grand and these birds don't deserve to lose every decision based on hindsighting the result.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 11:58, said:

It sort of does, and this is an interesting question.

I think you need to ask W what he thought E's range for 2N over his inverted 2♣ was, although it may be undiscussed, W would have a vision in his head for what he was bidding 6N opposite.

If he said 17-19 (where it's better than over the weak bid), that's very different to if he says 15-16 (where it's weaker), or if he said 15-19 (where it's pretty random whether it's weaker or stronger).

Asking West is one thing. People speculating here without anything from West is another thing altogether.

[Sjoerds]

VixTD, on 2012-December-05, 08:39, said:

Undiscussed.

I would imagine opposite a standard 2♣ bid it should show 17-19 hcp balanced, suggesting playing in no trumps. Opposite an inverted raise it could be a fair bit weaker, perhaps 15+. Their opening 1NT is 12-14, 1NT rebid is 15-17, 2NT (non-jump) rebid is 15+ GF after a change of suit.

But it is non the less important. If it really is 17-19 HCP I don't have many problems with 6NT, but you could poll.
Alerting 2♣ BTW is not obliged in all countries.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 18:01, said:

Asking West is one thing. People speculating here without anything from West is another thing altogether.

True, but when there is not enough information to make a sensible ruling, there is nothing wrong with people's suggesting what they would do under whatever set of circumstances seems to them to be likely.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-December-05, 08:52, said:

I think West is using UI in two different ways: he's playing his partner for a stronger hand than would be shown if 2♣ had been alerted, and he's making a call that his partner can't misconstrue. I suspect 3♣ (forcing after a 2NT rebid) is a logical alternative to bidding 6NT, and if he bid that he might play there.

It seems that the adjustment to 3C+4 is so automatic that I am surprised that anybody would suggest anything else. I would also give a PP for the 6NT bid, depending on West's experience.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 06:25, said:

It is also the only meaning I've ever seen played in a weak no trump acol context in nearly 40 years of bridge unless another relay bid is being used. In EBU land unless some other relay is used (we use 2♦) I would suggest that 99% of people play it as some form of 15+ and you'd assume 15+ bal if you hadn't agreed something else.

I really am beginning to worry about this sort of post, which reminds me of the "I have been playing bridge in England for well over 20 years and have never played against anyone who responds 2♠ to Stayman with both majors". Are you really telling me, Cyberyeti, that in 40 years of playing bridge, whenever your opponents are playing inverted minors you have always asked them how they play a 2NT rebid?

This thread is riddled with people who assume everyone else plays their way!

After an inverted minor, I do not know how most people play it, and I suspect nor do most people here: people take these things up from various sources and either play continuations as the source does, or work out continuations themselves, or base their rebids on other experiences or readings. I very much doubt there is consistency.

On the other hand, I have been playing straight Acol with various partners for 40+ years, and I think the quoted standard rebids are wrong. Standard is to rebid 2NT with 17-18, 3NT with 19, or 19-20. Admittedly, some poorer players get confused with other rebids and they do rebid 2NT with 15-16.

I feel the 6NT bid was based on UI, in fact I think it was unauthorised panic. But we really need to find out how these people play it. How did they take it up? Did they learn it from someone else? Why do they play 2♣ as forcing to 3♣, in fact, are you quite sure they do?

lamford, on 2012-December-09, 15:02, said:

It seems that the adjustment to 3C+4 is so automatic that I am surprised that anybody would suggest anything else. I would also give a PP for the 6NT bid, depending on West's experience.

Works for me if 3♣ is forcing. But, I don't play it as forcing myself.

I appreciate that it does not affect anything how I play it, except that I doubt I am really in a minority of one, so when I play it 2♣ is forcing to 2NT, 3♣ or game. A 2NT rebid shows stoppers in all suits and minimum, typically 11-13. A 3♣ rebid shows an unbalanced minimum. New suits show stoppers and may be minimum or not, ie 2♦/M rebids are only forcing to 2NT.

Playing with myself I would bid 3NT over 2NT. If I felt really optimistic I might try 3♥.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-December-24, 15:10, said:

Playing with myself I would bid 3NT over 2NT. If I felt really optimistic I might try 3♥.

I hope you only do that when playing online.