At this point South, who is considering a raise to 5D, asks about the 3S bid and is told it is a strong hand, possible 16+ points. South passes and West passes. North plays the hand in 4D and makes 12 tricks.
Is this hand strong?
#1
Posted 2018-July-28, 01:35
At this point South, who is considering a raise to 5D, asks about the 3S bid and is told it is a strong hand, possible 16+ points. South passes and West passes. North plays the hand in 4D and makes 12 tricks.
#2
Posted 2018-July-28, 03:58
#3
Posted 2018-July-28, 04:06
The West hand isn't strong, just a standard 3♠ pre-empt vulnerable, though some might prefer opening 1♠ and rebidding ♠s twice.
Yes, N/S were given wrong information.
#4
Posted 2018-July-28, 04:42
#5
Posted 2018-July-28, 07:03
FelicityR, on 2018-July-28, 04:06, said:
I would certainly prefer opening that hand 1♠ but in this case West didn't get a chance to do so, of course.
I think that 3♠ vuln is fine, except for the explanation supplied.
If the partnership is solid and has read Alvin Roth I would expect North to bid 3NT Unusual, at which point South starts to think about 12 tricks.
#6
Posted 2018-July-28, 07:44
pescetom, on 2018-July-28, 07:03, said:
I think that 3♠ vuln is fine, except for the explanation supplied.
If the partnership is solid and has read Alvin Roth I would expect North to bid 3NT Unusual, at which point South starts to think about 12 tricks.
3N to 90% of the world is natural, X for takeout is the normal action.
#7
Posted 2018-July-28, 09:39
FelicityR, on 2018-July-28, 04:06, said:
Were they? If the EW agreement is that West is supposed to be strong, there's no MI, unless they actually consider West's hand to be strong and in conformance with their agreement.
Remember, you're only entitled to the opponents' agreements, not what they actually hold.
#8
Posted 2018-July-28, 11:23
Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-28, 07:44, said:
Yes X for takeout is far more normal, although if I only had that I'd probably prefer 4♦. I see X here as showing both minors 4+ and general strength, unless partnership has other agreement.
#9
Posted 2018-July-28, 12:27
Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-28, 04:42, said:
Yes, N/S are very naive if they have not even considered this ossibility.
However I must add that 2♠ is the normal psyche; 3♠ probably usually a splinter. I may be wrong.
#11
Posted 2018-July-28, 12:38
Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-28, 12:32, said:
Ah right. Is it a sort-of controlled psyche if the bid never comes up naturally?
.
#12
Posted 2018-July-28, 14:10
Vampyr, on 2018-July-28, 12:38, said:
.
No, If I have 5 spades and 3 hearts I will also use it, allows partner to judge whether to bid 5♥ over 5m if he has 3♠.
It doesn't hurt that if I don't have spades it can be bloody awkward for opps to find their spade fit.
#13
Posted 2018-July-28, 17:14
Partner has come in at the 4 level opposite a passed hand, you have AKA and 3-card support. 5!D looks extremely conservative. Pass looks inexplicable.
#14
Posted 2018-July-28, 18:38
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2018-July-30, 03:03
#17
Posted 2018-July-30, 23:00
#18
Posted 2018-July-31, 02:57
Chris3875, on 2018-July-30, 23:00, said:
You might have noticed before that quite often the merits of bidding and playing are discussed here, not always useful in regards to a ruling. But that’s life on web fora.
As far as the ruling is concerned: S was given the correct explanation, so this is definitely not a case of MI. Law 75C: “When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction.” Maybe a hard way to learn for N and particularly S to trust his partner more than the opponents.
Another question which remains open is, whether a strong answer to a weak opening is forcing for EW. Over here it’s usual to play 2NT as forcing and 2♠ - or another suit - as a good hand but not forcing. About 3♠ most not to strong pairs would have no agreement.
And yes, this is a simple ruling, given the right information. Your original post didn’t give the EW agreement which lead to speculation.
#19
Posted 2018-July-31, 03:08
#20
Posted 2018-July-31, 03:39
Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-30, 08:00, said:
How much history? What % turns a psyche into a CPU?