[CSGibson]

---

You are playing 2/1 with a pick-up partner, who you know to be a advanced but not expert player. LHO is a national champion and RHO is his expert partner, who you are playing against in a club game (matchpoints) of a mixed standard. Everyone is NV.

RHO opens 1♦, you pass, and LHO, not seeing that his partner has opened, prepares to also open 1♦, but then changes his call to an inverted 2♦ (the original call not having left the box). Partner bids 3♦, presumably Michaels, and RHO reaches for a double card, then puts it back and instead passes to you.

You know both of these players are very ethical, and will try and avoid any actions suggested by the UI.

What actions would you have taken if there had not been any UI flying around? Does that change with all of your extra "table feel" available?

[gwnn]

If I knew my opponents were evil cheats, I'd bid 3♥.

If I knew my opponents were absolutely honest and would never do something unethical, I'd bid 3♥.

If they're something in between, who knows?

[kenberg]

I chose 3♥ rather than 4♥. This will probably not be doubled, and it may not be bad if it is, so I expect the opponents will have to decide how many diamonds they wish to play. Deciding whether to double 4♥ or go on in diamonds might well be an easier decision for them to get right.

I rarely base decisions on "table feel", I don't trust it. The stated conditions seem strange to me. I admit to, at times, having a lapse in concentration and not seeing my partner's bid although it is clearly on the table. So lho's actions I accept, including from a national champion. But I cannot remember the last time, if ever, that I reached for a double card, started to pull it, put it back and pulled a pass card. I pull my planned bid out and look at it before laying it down. Maybe I have pulled 4♥ where I meant to pull 4♠ or 4♦ and I have to adjust. That's understandable and, I hope, acceptable. But X instead of Pass? Whatever happened here, I don't like it. From an expert, I really don't like it.

Once is an accident, twice....

[Lurpoa]

Yes, 3♥. TNT=18. This cannot be doubled.
Let the opps find, if they want to play 3NT, 4 of 5♦.
Partner knows he can (probably) safely lead a H.

[JLOGIC]

Super easy 4H

[nigel_k]

Lurpoa, on 2011-January-14, 11:45, said:

Yes, 3♥. TNT=18. This cannot be doubled.
Let the opps find, if they want to play 3NT, 4 of 5♦.
Partner knows he can (probably) safely lead a H.

Another law victim. We have both major queens, partner is 5-5 at least and we have nothing in their suit(s). You can almost guarantee the law will be under by a trick, maybe two. Obvious 4♥, as Justin said, which either makes or they make 4♦ at least.

There isn't much UI since nearly all inverted raises to 2♦ are also 1♦ openings. And it would be unlikely to affect my choice anyway.

[mfa1010]

4♥. I'm not so good at making deliberate, tactical underbids. What is the point with 3♥?

[Phil]

Funny thread.

LHO thinks he opens 1♦ and 'corrects' to an inverted 2♦. Jeez, no UI there. Then RHO starts to smash 3♦ and thinks better of it and passes. Did he suddenly sprout a conscience? More UI.

Am I supposed to be talked out of a totally normal 4♥ call with these antics?

[ggwhiz]

I read the table action and level of competition as a reason to play for chuckles.

I pass, the illusion that they both opened with the minimum length (3 or 4) in the ♦ suit and I have the rest. They both have opening bids of 1♦ and 3♥ makes them decide how many to play. This gives them door # 3 with a reluctant correction to some number of hearts in my back pocket.

The UI floating around is UI to them, not to me and given their ethical reputations, could be pretty funny to watch them try to wiggle out of THIS one and I will defend 3nt and hope for the best if they go there.

I would never do this if I intended to call the police and bet that they would laugh at the situation too. Might be good for a round at the bar.

[FrancesHinden]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-14, 12:38, said:

Super easy 4H

I thought that when I voted and then discovered we were in a minority.

All this stuff about table action and UI is not that relevant. You know from the UI that LHO has opening values, 4+ diamonds and not a strong (I assume) NT. You could tell all of that by looking at your hand and listening to the auction that they have plenty of spare HCP so this hasn't told you much.

Fiddling with the double card and changing your mind is bad practice, but it doesn't really give anyone much UI other than that RHO didn't know what to bid.

As it is, I've got two super fitting cards and a fit for partner. It sounds like these opponents know what they are doing. If we let them have a free run that means they will get to the right contract, and we don't want that.

[gwnn]

I think I was too concentrated on saying that I don't care about their table feel etc and not concentrated enough on 3♥ vs 4♥. But maybe this is not a good enough excuse.

[phil_20686]

I would imagine that rho has a clear ish pen x of 4s, and dbled 3d intending to show that he had interst in a pen x, then decided that pass might be a LA. I think 4h is pretty obvious.

[kenberg]

My choice of 3♥: I regard it as possible that we will lose three tricks in the minors and two tricks in the majors. Perhaps they can make 5♦, perhaps not. Or maybe 3NT. Of course 4♥ might be right, the fact that all my values are in the majors argues for that, but my guess is that 4♥ will be doubled and then we better hope 5♦ is making. Anyway, it's my bid and I choose 3♥. I see some heavy hitters lined up on the other side and I take note.

As far as the table shenanigans go, OP assures us that they are straight arrows. If not, I would view the pseudo-double as perhaps a reason to go to 4♥. It is not impossible to imagine rho trying to convince us that he is seriously thinking of doubling 3♦, hoping to dissuade us from competing to the four level. His effort to dissuade me might, if I wanted to place weight on it, get me to bid four. I accept that these guys wouldn't do that, at least I provisionally accept it. An expert player who does not know enough to choose his bid before reaching for the bidding box is a little difficult to accept. Maybe an expert and a national champion are playing a bit lazy at a club game? Depends on the club, I suppose.

I have, from time to time, found strategic underbids to work fairly well. If I bid 3♥, the opponents learn little because I had to bid something. If I bid 4♥ the opponents learn we have a good heart fit. Possibly that will assist them. On another day I might go 4♥. But not on table feel.

[kenberg]

This is perhaps a stretch: Lho was starting to open 1♦, saw his partner's call, and changed it to 2♦, "the original call having not left the box". I don't know the rules exactly. Would it have been possible for lho to bid 1♠ without penalty? Whatever the position of the bidding cards, it seems from the description that the original intention to bid 1♦ was clear to everyone.

Here is why in matters (to me): We presumably have a 5-2 spade fit. They may find 5♦ harder to make if their spades split 3-3. A priori, 3-3 is less likely than 4-2, but that is because 4-4 can be 4-2 or 2-4. If the 2♦ is a real inverted raise then we can pretty much rule out four spades to the left. Now 3-3 is more likely than 4 on the right, 2 on the left. I make the odds at approximately 4:3. However, if lho was more or less compelled to bid some number of diamonds in order that his partner not be barred, then that logic fails. I wasn't there and am vague on the rules so I simply cannot say if the 1♦ call could have been replaced by 1♠ without penalty.

[FrancesHinden]

In the ACBL, I believe, a call has not been made until it is (more or less) placed on the table, so the 1D bid had not been made - although there was still UI.
In the UK, the call is made when it is removed from the bidding box with "apparent intent"

p.s. sometimes partner has 6 spades

[CSGibson]

I was just curious. I thought 4♥ to be obvious with the information that LHO had a hand that would have opened, less obvious if they were not going to be in a game force (dreaming of being X'd in 3♥ or even buying it undoubled). This was with the information that partner would michaels on pretty much any 5-5 hand, (bidding judgment being the weakest part of his game). His actual hand was

---

.

And yes, they did settle in 5♦ making 6 - for a tie for bottom when most of the rest of the small club game is going down in 6N

[cherdano]

I also thought this would be an unanimous 4♥ bid. Partner's 3♦ isn't from the same planet I live on.

[kenberg]

It's hard to draw many solid conclusions. If everyone else is bidding 6NT off 1 then you are getting a bad board unless you can convince your opponents to do likewise. I suppose the diamonds are 5-5 and their 11 tricks in NT are 2+1+5+3=11 and the twelfth trick in diamonds comes from a ruff in whichever suit splits unevenly. Possibly the 4♥ kept them out of 6♦, a victory with no reward attached to it.

I suppose that rho was about to double the 3♦ to show extra length, which I think in some partnerships it does, and then realized that current partner would not take it that way. With five diamonds it would seem to me to be premature to start suggesting that we double and defend.

[whereagles]

Agree to 4♥. You have 2 fillers and opps are game on.