[aguahombre]

Yep, that would make a difference about 4C.

Traditionally, this type of NT bid was meant (is meant, for us) to show a 2-card difference in the two suits being shown. Although usually 6-4, this hand came up recently:

X - AXXXX KQXXXXX

Pard overcalled 2C; and when it came back around at the 4-level in a major she bid 4NT. It wasn't hard to figure out.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-02, 06:31, said:

Traditionally, this type of NT bid was meant (is meant, for us) to show a 2-card difference in the two suits being shown. Although usually 6-4, this hand came up recently:

X - AXXXX KQXXXXX

Pard overcalled 2C; and when it came back around at the 4-level in a major she bid 4NT. It wasn't hard to figure out.

'Simple' Blackwood surely. Or natural with Burn and Callaghan.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2011-June-02, 10:22, said:

'Simple' Blackwood surely. Or natural with Burn and Callaghan.

Heh...to both parts.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 15:22, said:

Others do. "In my world, 3NT is to play unless there is an agreement otherwise" - campboy.
"With Callaghan, it was always to play" - Dburn
"I would regard it as natural ... <snip> ... an intelligent call <snip>" - jallerton (somewhat out of context it is agreed)

But this time I agree with you that it is laughable.

To clarify: if partner had shown one long minor, and if one of us could have sufficient stoppers and fit for that minor to make 3NT viable, then 3NT was to play (and there was no "agreement otherwise"). In the auction on which the present case appears to be based, these conditions do not apply.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-June-02, 12:33, said:

To clarify: if partner had shown one long minor, and if one of us could have sufficient stoppers and fit for that minor to make 3NT viable, then 3NT was to play (and there was no "agreement otherwise"). In the auction on which the present case appears to be based, these conditions do not apply.

Right, I think I understand. So 3NT by South instead of his second Pass would have shown sufficient stoppers and fit for diamonds to make 3NT viable, and therefore would have been to play? Good methods to expose those mean Precision folks psyching a strong club and game-forcing 2♠ at adverse.

Gambol: You think you can steal from us and just walk away?
The Joker: Yeah.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-June-02, 17:30, said:

Right, I think I understand. So 3NT by South instead of his second Pass would have shown sufficient stoppers and fit for diamonds to make 3NT viable, and therefore would have been to play? Good methods to expose those mean Precision folks psyching a strong club and game-forcing 2♠ at adverse.

No - South's first pass would already have denied sufficient stoppers and fit for diamonds to make 3NT viable. Compare and contrast an auction in which South, instead of passing at his first turn, had opened 1NT and might therefore have three aces and some hope of running his partner's long minor if it were, say, king-seventh - that is, an auction in which South might actually expect to make 3NT on a combined 15 count, with his opponents full value for doubling everything so far in sight without being assumed to be "psyching" in the least.

Or, as you will, don't compare and contrast it, for to do so would detract immeasurably from the arguments you are trying to make. That is your prerogative, of course, but although Callaghan and I may be stupid, we're not as stupid as you are trying (without any justification that I can see) to imply that we are. The same goes for campboy and jallerton, of course, subject to the proviso that I don't consider at all that they may be stupid.

An anecdote: Callaghan and I once had the auction 1♦ (Precision with a 15-17 no trump) - pass - 3♦ (weak) - double - pass - 3♥ - 3NT. Mirabile dictu, he didn't have some minor two-suiter with longer diamonds than clubs; he had (as anyone but you and the drunken hyenas at Bournemouth would expect him to have) king-queen-seventh of diamonds and a jack. RHO doubled again and LHO gave us both a pitying look as his partner led something against the final contract of 3NT doubled, which was cold.

[Trinidad]

For me, it would be obvious that South' pass is asking North to pick his minor himself, so -up to here- I am with the laughers. I do have one question for North, though. He had shown his 6-4 pattern with 3NT. His partner asked him to pick one of those. Why did he pick the one that was worst?

So, North did not use UI when he was running from 3NTX. But, in my opinion, he did use UI when he was running to 4♣. And I don't believe that NS would have found 6♣, if North would have bid 4♦, instead of 4♣.

Rik

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-June-02, 19:15, said:

No - South's first pass would already have denied sufficient stoppers and fit for diamonds to make 3NT viable. Compare and contrast an auction in which South, instead of passing at his first turn, had opened 1NT and might therefore have three aces and some hope of running his partner's long minor if it were, say, king-seventh - that is, an auction in which South might actually expect to make 3NT on a combined 15 count, with his opponents full value for doubling everything so far in sight without being assumed to be "psyching" in the least.

Or, as you will, don't compare and contrast it, for to do so would detract immeasurably from the arguments you are trying to make. That is your prerogative, of course, but although Callaghan and I may be stupid, we're not as stupid as you are trying (without any justification that I can see) to imply that we are. The same goes for campboy and jallerton, of course, subject to the proviso that I don't consider at all that they may be stupid.

No, I don't think any of you (or Brian), campboy or jallerton are stupid in the slightest, and if I have implied so, then I apologise. If you conclude that I thought "Fools are my theme, let satire be my song," then this was not the case.

As I stated in another thread, I have always marvelled at how you seem to make 3NT when it is "impossible" to do so. But I submit that, on the grounds of frequency, when a player has shown no values at all, and the partner of that player has limited his hand, 3NT is better employed as artificial. Sure, we might lose the occasional 15-point 3NT, but there are many more hands where an unnatural 3NT is useful.

But that is by the by, the relevant issue is not whether 3NT is natural for Burn and Callaghan, but whether it is natural for a partnership with the same methods. My partner and I play that 1D - 2NT is a bad diamond raise as well. But if we had the auction 1D - (Pass) - 2NT - (double) - Pass - (3H) - 3NT, I would not expect that to be natural in a million years. I would not expect Jeffrey and Frances to play it as natural either. And, as I say, I marvel at the fact that you and Brian did so, albeit with somewhat different assumptions - in that you could have had but one diamond. And I would not expect campboy to think it was natural either, although he states it always is, if there is no agreement.

And in that other thread ... the one I do not post on any more as jallerton believed I was writing nonsense (without any justification that I can see), nobody addressed the very important issue of why 3NTx should not stand, as, even if bidding by either North or South is an infraction, the correct adjustment is to 5Cx - 3. That adjustment is greater than the putative correction to 3NTx -1 or -2 (and the former is much more likely), so the correct ruling on the board is 100% of 5Cx - 3. For that to be correct, bidding 5C over 4H only has to be an LA, and you have already indicated that everyone (except campboy) thinks 3NT shows clubs. Perhaps you think that partner's action of bidding 3NT and then pulling to 4C (in the authorised action) does not suggest saving? On that I am certain you are quite a way off the mark.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2011-June-03, 01:56, said:

For me, it would be obvious that South' pass is asking North to pick his minor himself, so -up to here- I am with the laughers. I do have one question for North, though. He had shown his 6-4 pattern with 3NT. His partner asked him to pick one of those. Why did he pick the one that was worst?
Rik

As he explained to the TD, the pass of 3NTx was "pick a suit", not "pick a minor", as I wrote later, correcting my misquote. Therefore he could be 0-3-7-3, 0-4-6-3 or 0-3-6-4 perhaps. Or even 1-4-6-2 on a bad day. So, as aquahombre agrees, 4C was not an infraction.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 05:30, said:

As he explained to the TD, the pass of 3NTx was "pick a suit", not "pick a minor", as I wrote later, correcting my misquote. Therefore he could be 0-3-7-3, 0-4-6-3 or 0-3-6-4 perhaps. Or even 1-4-6-2 on a bad day. So, as aquahombre agrees, 4C was not an infraction.

I can buy that. End of story (from my part). And tough luck for EW.

Rik

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 15:22, said:

Others do. "In my world, 3NT is to play unless there is an agreement otherwise" - campboy.

I don't see what that has to do with this case. North knows that he didn't intend 3NT as natural, after all. In fact, in the other thread from which you took that quote I suggested that a player who has made an undiscussed 3NT when he did not want to play there is obliged to pull if it subsequently gets doubled. So if 3NT is undiscussed I do not think passing is an LA.

If North thinks there was an agreement that 3NT is unusual, otoh, then the question is: if partner bids an unusual 3NT and it is doubled, does passing suggest an interest in playing there? Now whatever the answer to that question may be, it does not follow from my statement quoted above.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-03, 08:20, said:

If North thinks there was an agreement that 3NT is unusual, otoh, then the question is: if partner bids an unusual 3NT and it is doubled, does passing suggest an interest in playing there? Now whatever the answer to that question may be, it does not follow from my statement quoted above.

I think you therefore meant that 3NT was usually to play, unless there is an agreement otherwise. If North had redoubled 3NT, having explained Pass as "pick a suit", intending redouble to be "no, you do", would you still think 3NT was natural? Oddly, I play that 3NT is usually natural as well. But not when it isn't.

[AlexJonson]

I have found the last couple of related threads puzzling in some respects.

1. I dont understand why it matters what dburn used to play with someone.

Why does that define the meaning of an obscure 3NT in a TD case?

2. I don't understand why it matters what jallerton thinks in theory or thinks lamford's partner thinks.

There is some interesting debate going on here, but most of us are not part of it IMO.

If there is an important question to be investigated, let's spit it out and have the debate.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-03, 15:09, said:

I have found the last couple of related threads puzzling in some respects.

1. I dont understand why it matters what dburn used to play with someone.

Why does that define the meaning of an obscure 3NT in a TD case?

2. I don't understand why it matters what jallerton thinks in theory or thinks lamford's partner thinks.

There is some interesting debate going on here, but most of us are not part of it IMO.

If there is an important question to be investigated, let's spit it out and have the debate.

Ah, but a logical alernative is defined as "one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of Surrey players, of whom it is judged some might select it." So it does matter. There is a typo in some editions of the Laws which has "such".

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 09:17, said:

I think you therefore meant that 3NT was usually to play, unless there is an agreement otherwise. If North had redoubled 3NT, having explained Pass as "pick a suit", intending redouble to be "no, you do", would you still think 3NT was natural? Oddly, I play that 3NT is usually natural as well. But not when it isn't.

I don't understand what you mean.

If they have an agreement that it is unusual and South has forgotten, it is not to play since they have an agreement otherwise. North should pass if to do so is an LA. I don't care whether it is or not, since it has nothing to do with what I said in the other thread.

If they do not have an agreement that it is unusual then, in accordance with what I said elsewhere, I would not bid it in the first place. But if I had done so I would certainly then pull it since I'd know I had made an undiscussed (so, in my world, natural) 3NT bid with a hand that did not want to play in 3NT, and this is AI.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 15:30, said:

Ah, but a logical alernative is defined as "one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of Surrey players, of whom it is judged some might select it." So it does matter. There is a typo in some editions of the Laws which has "such".

I was pleased to see that the recent Laws included a definition of 'Logical Alternative'.

However, I now see debates that attempt to undermine this definition. I've seen two lines of attack:

1. No objective test is required (eg a poll of equivalent players). It's just a notion the TD imagines in his mind.

2. It doesn't matter because we have Law 73 up our sleeve, and for some reason the word 'any' in Law 73 has assumed mystical significance that exceeds Law 16.

So I'm still not sure, Lamford, that you have made your point clear. You may think it is clear to anyone you care about, but that just takes us back to my original point.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-03, 16:08, said:

If they do not have an agreement that it is unusual then, in accordance with what I said elsewhere, I would not bid it in the first place. But if I had done so I would certainly then pull it since I'd know I had made an undiscussed (so, in my world, natural) 3NT bid with a hand that did not want to play in 3NT, and this is AI.

OK, I understand; you would not make an undiscussed 3NT bid unless it was intended as natural. So, if you partner bid 3NT you would always treat it as natural, however implausible? And if East had passed instead of doubling, you would have passed? Obviously North can pull a double as he knows it is not natural. But if he redoubles, you would still treat it as natural and pass?

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-03, 16:17, said:

I was pleased to see that the recent Laws included a definition of 'Logical Alternative'.

However, I now see debates that attempt to undermine this definition. I've seen two lines of attack:

1. No objective test is required (eg a poll of equivalent players). It's just a notion the TD imagines in his mind.

Other than the faulty wording in 16B, mentioned elsewhere, I don't think anybody disagrees with the test - a poll of equivalent players without the UI. The difficulty, especially with these off-beat 3NT bids, is establishing what the methods of the pair are. Usually one or both players has UI, and those polled are told you are playing a weak no-trump and four transfers, and you bid 1NT - Pass - 2NT - X - 3NT for example. The difficulty is that players will often have no agreement on the authorised auction, and there will be a big difference of opinion on what the auction means.

And I don't think I have made my point clear either. What I will say is that the TD should establish the most likely meaning of the auction by analogy with other sequences which the pair has discussed, and then poll players giving them that information.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 17:36, said:

OK, I understand; you would not make an undiscussed 3NT bid unless it was intended as natural. So, if you partner bid 3NT you would always treat it as natural, however implausible? And if East had passed instead of doubling, you would have passed? Obviously North can pull a double as he knows it is not natural. But if he redoubles, you would still treat it as natural and pass?

I don't think I know anyone daft enough to redouble it. Isn't that manoeuvre straight out of Why You Lose at Bridge?

Anyway, on the actual South hand I don't care whether 3NT was natural or not; I don't want to pass with a weak hand with undisclosed support and a void.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-03, 18:37, said:

I don't think I know anyone daft enough to redouble it. Isn't that manoeuvre straight out of Why You Lose at Bridge?

Anyway, on the actual South hand I don't care whether 3NT was natural or not; I don't want to pass with a weak hand with undisclosed support and a void.

We agree.