[Fluffy]

---

2NT is natural invite, 3[e] would be preemptive others would benatural.
3♣ no agreement, presumibly natural.
3♥ was slow.

West says that partner's reaction to 3♣ is meaningless because he just bid 3♣ to avoid a club lead in 4♥.

[helene_t]

Back to 3♥+1.

Dunno why East didn't accept. The 3♣ bid should be good news.

[wank]

result stands. 3c looks like a lead inhibiting bid and that's what west claims it was. it might be harder to believe west if he had more clubs.

[steve2005]

Rebidding a worthless 3♣ doesn't sound like an invite sounds lead inhibiting like he said. Opener's hand would be worth going to game in some eyes.

[blackshoe]

West clearly has UI. I think that it demonstrably could suggest bidding on. Is pass a LA? I think so, but maybe we need a poll. If it is an LA, then a score adjustment is clear.

West's comment is irrelevant, and his reasoning in that comment is flawed.

Another question: does west do this kind of thing often? Is East aware of such a tendency? Is the fact that a player might bid 3♣ in this auction to inhibit a club lead knowledge generally available to bridge players? Okay, that's several questions.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-10, 17:09, said:

West's comment is irrelevant, and his reasoning in that comment is flawed.

no it's not and no it isn't. there is no logical alternative to bidding game for a man who has resolved to bid game via a lead inhibiting call. his hand looks like a game bid which doesn't want a club lead. he says he was bidding 3 clubs on the way to game to stop the lead. you might not believe him, but i do. given i believe that's why he bid 3 clubs, he has no logical alternative to 4 hearts on the next round.

just as it would be inconsistent to make a game try, hear it rejected and then bid game, it would be equally inconsistent to psyche to increase one's chances of making game, and then not bid it.

imagine this, you want to bid slam. you have xx of an unbid suit but you think you've got plenty of tricks. you decide to wheel out voidwood to deflect the lead. partner only makes his ace showing response slowly. you might well have 2 or 3 losers off the top (2 from the voidwood suit) based on partner's response, but from the slowness you have a sneaky suspicion that partner has something in reserve (a void of his own of AK of the void suit maybe). by your logic you would have to sign off, despite your earlier voidwood bid de facto committing you to slam.

[blackshoe]

Logical alternatives are not based on what he said he was doing, even if you believe that's what he was doing. Give the auction and hand to several of West's peers and ask what they would do.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-10, 21:56, said:

Logical alternatives are not based on what he said he was doing, even if you believe that's what he was doing. Give the auction and hand to several of West's peers and ask what they would do.

what he said he was doing affects who his peers are. you would need to find people who would also psyche 3c on the way to game to conduct a worthwhile poll. good luck with that.

[blackshoe]

Polling peers is a way to inform the TD's judgement. If no peers can be found to poll, the TD still has to make a judgement.

[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-10, 17:09, said:

Another question: does west do this kind of thing often? Is East aware of such a tendency? Is the fact that a player might bid 3♣ in this auction to inhibit a club lead knowledge generally available to bridge players? Okay, that's several questions.

When someone raises his own invitation you can conclude that he wants to give you free shots for hesitations, of he was fooling around. So I thnk opponents get their info anyway on this hand.

[helene_t]

That West's explanation is "irrelevant" is maybe a bit harsh but it is self-serving, and since this pair has no agreement about it, it might have been meant as a help suit trial. It is also a bit difficult to see that the West hand is always a game bid. A balanced 13-count with a weak trump suit is not what I would describe as extra values.

[aguahombre]

This is ridiculous. It was East who made the game invite. West isn't accepting his own invite.

West has an acceptance of East's invite. I don't think much of his cute 3C bid enroute, but that is not something to let cloud the obvious. On my planet, when my 2H raise could have been a really crappy hand and is max'd out at 14 in support of hearts, a nice 13 accepts game. West has a side source of tricks with the KQJx of Spades all working together, a Bullet, and nice trump fillers. It is a 4H bid. Imposing a "help-suit regame try" definition on West's 3c bid is nonsense. It is actually just a worn out ploy which doesn't fool anyone above the beginner level.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-October-11, 04:22, said:

This is ridiculous. It was East who made the game invite. West isn't accepting his own invite.

Not really. East made a "general strength" invite, but West countered with what looks like a help-suit or natural game try. So this passes the buck back to East.

How is West's explanation that he bid 3♣ just as a lead-inhibiting bid different from any other "I was always going to ..." claim in a UI situation?

Another thing: is it really necessary to bid the suit you opened as a lead-inhibitor? Aren't they usually going to be reluctant to lead that suit? Unless they have a holding like KQJx, in which case the bid isn't going to fool them.

[OleBerg]

wank, on 2015-October-11, 00:02, said:

what he said he was doing affects who his peers are. you would need to find people who would also psyche 3c on the way to game to conduct a worthwhile poll. good luck with that.

.

Wrong. Whom his peers are is determined by skill-level. So you have to find a number of peers who would bid 3♣, never mind their reasoning. If a number of these peers also passes 3♥, then pass is a logical alternative.

[OleBerg]

Fluffy, on 2015-October-10, 13:25, said:

---

2NT is natural invite, 3[e] would be preemptive others would benatural.
3♣ no agreement, presumibly natural.
3♥ was slow.

West says that partner's reaction to 3♣ is meaningless because he just bid 3♣ to avoid a club lead in 4♥.

West might be telling the truth, but even if the TD believes him, the ruling will still have to be 3♥+1 if pass is a logical alternative.