[jeffford76]

---

[Edit: IMPs, 7 board Swiss matches, Sectional]

The 3♣ transfer is not alerted. Now what would you do? (No special minor suit ace asking bids.)

At the table this hand bid 5♣, and they played there making 5 exactly opposite partner's AKxxxx in clubs, and off one ace. ♣QJx was onside, but not finessed against.

The opponents suggest that this hand should be making a slam try, and that the hands may get too high, and that 5♣ while better than reflexively bidding 4♦ is actually taking advantage of the UI. Your ruling?

[lamford]

It is hard to fault 5C. You have made a game-forcing bid, and partner has eschewed 3NT. I don't think anything is demonstrably suggested. It looks normal to support clubs now, and the UI does not make Five or Six Clubs any more or less likely to succeed. I think you probably have to bid 5C, as partner's clubs might be less good than if he had alerted and correctly explained.

[trevahound]

Isn't that a reason to bid 6♣, not 5♣? 5♣ to me is catering to partner having less in clubs that I would expect had the alert been proper (but I don't play transfers here, so I might be very wrong on what partner shows). I wouldn't stop short of 6♣ if I had no decent asking tools available. I won't cater to partner thinking I've already shown clubs.

[lamford]

trevahound, on 2013-January-28, 19:10, said:

Isn't that a reason to bid 6♣, not 5♣? 5♣ to me is catering to partner having less in clubs that I would expect had the alert been proper (but I don't play transfers here, so I might be very wrong on what partner shows). I wouldn't stop short of 6♣ if I had no decent asking tools available. I won't cater to partner thinking I've already shown clubs.

I presume we are minimum for the game-forcing transfer, and that partner's 4C would be stronger (in the unauthorised auction) than 5C. In the authorised auction, 4C should show a hand unsuitable for 3NT, which would be quite a surprise given the lack of major-suit preemption. Partner could have either Kx Kx Jxxx AKQxx or Ax Ax xxxx AKQxx. I find it hard to decide which of Pass, 5C, 6C, 7C or 4NT is demonstrably suggested over each other. It also seems like 6C was excellent on the actual hand, but the opponents want an adjustment because clubs broke 3-0 and it would have gone off!

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-January-28, 22:43, said:

It also seems like 6C was excellent on the actual hand, but the opponents want an adjustment because clubs broke 3-0 and it would have gone off!

Nevertheless, in such a situation they are entitled to ask for an adjustment if the UI demonstrably suggested 5C over a bid leading to 6C, because damage is assessed in relation to the actual outcome. I think the only way to find out if there are LAs to 5C that will lead to different contract is do a survey.

[Zelandakh]

Is 4♣ denying diamond support and showing long clubs and no interest in 3NT? or showing diamond support and a club suit, like a FSNJ? or a cue bid? or an asking bid? Or what exactly? I do not see how we can possibly tell what calls are LAs here without knowing the N-S system.

[jeffford76]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-29, 08:31, said:

Is 4♣ denying diamond support and showing long clubs and no interest in 3NT? or showing diamond support and a club suit, like a FSNJ? or a cue bid? or an asking bid? Or what exactly? I do not see how we can possibly tell what calls are LAs here without knowing the N-S system.

4♣ is natural and forcing. It isn't more defined than that except by bridge logic (obviously a hand that is willing to bypass 3NT).

[c_corgi]

Can I ask for keycards without getting too high?

[jeffford76]

c_corgi, on 2013-January-29, 09:52, said:

Can I ask for keycards without getting too high?

Unfortunately I don't have access to the full system, or ability to ask about this. I believe 4NT would be RKC for clubs, but not sure which way around 3014/1430.

[ArtK78]

I don't see the problem, as I don't see why the failure to alert conveys any information to North that makes 5♣ the correct call.

With or without the alert, North underbid his cards. South could easily have (Axx xxx) or (xxx Axx) xx AKQxx for his bidding and slam would be cold. Even without the ♣Q, slam would be reasonable, and better still if South had AKJxx of clubs (not to mention AKxxxx of clubs).

I just do not see how the failure to alert 3♣ and the subsequent 4♣ call indicates that 5♣ is the correct action on the North hand.

If North-South had bid slam and the clubs broke 2-2, would East-West be complaining that North took advantage of the failure to alert by bidding more than he did? You cannot have it both ways.

There has to be some relationship between the failure to alert and the action taken by North to justify an adjusted score. I just do not see it here.

[Zelandakh]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-29, 09:47, said:

4♣ is natural and forcing. It isn't more defined than that except by bridge logic (obviously a hand that is willing to bypass 3NT).

It must be more defined than that by, at the very least, what the meaning of 3♦ would be. Some play accepting a transfer in GF auctions as showing fit, some as denying fit and some as a specific number of cards (no doubt there are some other options too). Another question that might be relevant (not sure, I did not check yet) is whether we play Minorwood, Kickback, "next unused suit Kickback" (sorry I do not know the proper convention name) or something else.

Looking a little close for an answer to corgi's question, 4♦ is surely natural so the cheapest possible key card ask would be 4♥. That would risk a 2+Q response committing us to 5NT/6m off 2 key cards (can we stop in 5NT in that case?). That's even if the ask would not be 4NT. But if we are playing Minorwood then we have the situation that partner probably intends 4♣ as an ask. Then we should presumably look for a LA that would produce a possible key card-showing response.

[Zelandakh]

You make a good point Art. Putting aside the LAs for a moment, the UI surely suggests that South may have more diamond length than we would otherwise anticipate. That makes bidding the slam better, no? So, unless there is something extra here (Minorwood was an example from my previous post) then it seems difficult to get from the UI to an auction where North bids slam. But let's do it properly by finding out the full agreements and seeing what LAs are there.

[blackshoe]

If 4♣ is definitely ace asking, then surely there's no LA to showing your number of aces (4♠). If 4♣ is ambiguous, or undiscussed, or unknown, then there may be other LAs.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-29, 10:06, said:

With or without the alert, North underbid his cards. South could easily have (Axx xxx) or (xxx Axx) xx AKQxx for his bidding and slam would be cold. Even without the ♣Q, slam would be reasonable, and better still if South had AKJxx of clubs (not to mention AKxxxx of clubs).

Without the alert can't South also have hands that don't have so many clubs? After all, South thinks they're raising a natural club bid. They could easily have Axx or xxxx.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-29, 12:16, said:

Without the alert can't South also have hands that don't have so many clubs? After all, South thinks they're raising a natural club bid. They could easily have Axx or xxxx.

I don't think that anyone would bid 4♣ here with Axx or xxxx of clubs. There has to be some other call between 3♣ and 4♣ for such a hand.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-29, 12:38, said:

I don't think that anyone would bid 4♣ here with Axx or xxxx of clubs. There has to be some other call between 3♣ and 4♣ for such a hand.

Really? What would you think it would be? I would think the strong hand would want to be able to bid all the other suits naturally. I certainly wouldn't expect you'd need AKxxx to raise. To be clear, there were lower bids available that were forcing by the 3♣ bidder, so they have already emphasized having a good suit.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-29, 12:42, said:

Really? What would you think it would be? I would think the strong hand would want to be able to bid all the other suits naturally. I certainly wouldn't expect you'd need AKxxx to raise. To be clear, there were lower bids available that were forcing by the 3♣ bidder, so they have already emphasized having a good suit.

Any hand that opens 1♣ holding either Axx or xxxx of clubs has to be a balanced hand (with the exception of 4414). So the opener would certainly want to explore the possibility of playing in 3NT before reraising clubs. Just because LHO showed major suits doesn't mean that 3NT is not a possible contract.

[Zelandakh]

Art, I think you have perhaps missed that 1♣ was Precision-like.

blackshoe, on 2013-January-29, 10:51, said:

If 4♣ is definitely ace asking, then surely there's no LA to showing your number of aces (4♠). If 4♣ is ambiguous, or undiscussed, or unknown, then there may be other LAs.

Ed, I was meaning that 4♣ could be key card-asking from East's point of view playing Minorwood. It is obviously not from West's point of view since we were told this. So it is equally clear that West giving an answer to RKCB would be a gross misuse of UI. Anyway, jefford says that only 4NT is asking so it is all moot.

Since we bid diamonds and partner bid clubs, I think we have established beyond doubt that West's overcall was based on the majors. So I think LAs to consider are 4♥ (cue agreeing clubs, not 1 key card!) and 5♣. Can we show that 5♣ is demonstrably suggested over 4♥? Anyone have any other LAs in mind? Would South bypass 5♣ after a cue ((s)he presumably thinks we have denied a diamond control)? Would the play be different in 6♣?

[Trinidad]

What would I think without the UI?

Partner would be showing an excellent club suit (he is willing to introduce it at the four level, bypassing 3NT). Partner has already shown a big hand. In support of partner I am bringing 4 card trump support, a side suit that is ready to run, controls in every suit but trump.

Signing off in game with less than 6 losers opposite a strong club opening with a 10+ card fit is the underbid of the century. I would ask for keycards and bid 7♣ opposite 4 keys* and 6♣ opposite 3.

What does the UI tell me?

Partner does not have an excellent club suit. He is merely raising my club suit (that I don't really have). That makes it much less likely that there is a slam. There is no known fit, the wheels are coming off. Let's get out as cheap as possible. I would like to pass 4♣, since partner might be able to make it. On the other hand bidding and making game might save a few IMPs.

What is the conclusion of this all?

Bidding 5♣ is blatant use of UI. Asking for keycards is an LA. Depending on the number of keys, we adjust the score to 6♣ or 7♣* going down. Depending on the experience of the North player, we add a PP.

Rik

*If partner shows 4 keys, the situation is a little more complicated than that. I would not sign off in 7♣. I would try to reach 7NT, starting by showing that we have all the keys (e.g. by bidding 5NT). So, opposite 4 keys, we might be reaching 7NT. Depending on the full layout, this might make (meaning that the NOS may not be damaged) or it may go off several (re-)doubled (and the NOS might gain 20+ IMPs).

[CamHenry]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-30, 05:33, said:

What would I think without the UI?

Partner would be showing an excellent club suit (he is willing to introduce it at the four level, bypassing 3NT). Partner has already shown a big hand. In support of partner I am bringing 4 card trump support, a side suit that is ready to run, controls in every suit but trump.

Signing off in game with less than 6 losers opposite a strong club opening with a 10+ card fit is the underbid of the century. I would ask for keycards and bid 7♣ opposite 4 keys* and 6♣ opposite 3.

The big question is "do NS play transfer breaks here?". If 3♦ shows a bad hand for diamonds, and 4♣shows clubs with ♦ support, then some slam try in ♦ is an LA. If 4♣ shows its own suit, effectively saying "I don't care that you have ♦, I have great ♣", then a slam try in ♣ is suggested.

I agree with your analysis (once I re-read it and understood properly), but I think the premise in this part is imperfect.