BBO Discussion Forums: corrected explanation problem - BBO Discussion Forums

This had no consequence at the table but it got me to wondering. The setting is a Swiss Team game at a recent Regional, but it could just as well have been online.


Uncontested auction:

1NT on my left
3C on my right, alerted as a transfer to Diamonds. I pass.
Lho puts down a 3D bid, and then says, approximately "Oops, I forgot. We changed this, We are playing Puppet."

Now for anyone reading this who does not know (the standard version of) Puppet, the 3D call denies a fie card major and promises at least on four card major.

I summoned the director. The facts were agreed to and my rho made it clear that he understood his obligations. For example, if he held two four card majors then the correct Puppet action over 3D would be to bid 4D so opener could show a major.

However, Rho had no four card major, he had bid 3C only to see if opener had a five card major. So his correct Puppet response is 3NT and that is what he bid.

So where is the problem, what is my question? Here:

Am I allowed to ask my Lho if she would have bid 3D in response to 3C had she realized it was Puppet?

We have to defend. Without the lapse in memory, the Puppet auction would have gone either 1NT-3C-3NT (no 4 or 5 card major) or else it would have gone 1NT-3C-3D (I have a 4 card major) -3NT (nice to hear that you have one,, but I don't). So I, as defender, would have known whether she, the declarer, does or does not have a four card major. As it went at teh table, I don't know this because the 3D bid she put down was from thinking 3C was a transfer.

On this hand: The info would not have affected our defense, we won the match anyway, and neither of us were in contention for any overall award. And they were a congenial pair. So the answer is irrelevant to that match. I did not think to raise this issue with the director, and probably I wouldn't have bothered even if I had thought of it. Later i got curious.

Iit is not clear to me if I am entitled to know whether she would have bid 3D or 3NT had she realized it was Puppet. Mistakes happen. If someone makes a mistaken bid in a natural auction, and if that error produces a good result, so be it. Is it different for an artificial auction?

No, you are entitled to know what the bids made mean as well as what alternatives would have been at each turn but not about alternative auctions or what is held in their hands.

Did this pair not play 2♣ as normal Stayman?

Vampyr, on 2016-August-17, 16:13, said:

Sure. Responder had no four card major, he was checking back to see if they had a 5-3 major fit. NT-3C-3D, assuming that opener intended it as a Puppet response, denied a five. card major.

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-17, 14:34, said:

Let me just check to see if we are speaking of the same thing.

Knowing about alternative bids: The following came up against another pair
1C alerted as short. Could be as short as 2.
1D alerted as a required bid, showing nothing at all.


I was a bit incredulous so I asked "If he had, say, six spades and a decent hand he would still be required to bid 1D" . The answer was yes. He always bids 1D in response to 1C. OK, it's their system, but it seemed weird. I really thought that the "shows nothing at all" was just careless phrasing and I wanted to forestall any later problems.

But that's different.

In the case at hand, I was given complete information about their system. The problem was that at the time she bid 3D she forgot what their system was. It would have been to my advantage to allow her to pick up the 3D card and replace it by her correct Puppet call. That way I (and her partner) would learn if she did or did not have a four card major. They would still play in 3NT, but I would be more informed about her hand.

But I think you are right. Actually I guess I hope you are right. She made an honest error, the result was that I knew less about her hand than I would have known if she had not erred. But I think it's just that's the breaks.

kenberg, on 2016-August-17, 16:33, said:

Consider an alternate scenario, where should doesn't realize her error until the end of the auction. She corrects it before the opening lead, as required. But you're still not entitled to find out what she would have bid had she remembered earlier. The fact that she realized her error earlier in the auction doesn't change this. In both cases, it's too late for her to change her call, so you're not entitled to know what she would have done.

BTW, I recently learned a better version of Puppet Stayman over 1NT. 3♦ denies a 5-card major, but doesn't say anything about whether opener has a 4-card major. If responder is 4-3 in the majors, he now bids the 3-card suit. If opener did have 4 in the other major, he bids it and you find your 4-4 fit. Responder never needs to bid 4♦ to show both majors, because he would use regular Stayman with this hand, not Puppet Stayman. When the auction goes 1NT-3♣-3♦-3NT, less information has been revealed about opener's hand.

This treatment only works when you use Puppet over 1NT. Over 2NT, you don't have room to make two different types of Stayman bids (but there are other conventions like Muppet Stayman, maybe they offer similar advantages).

barmar, on 2016-August-17, 19:38, said:

Yes, I also recently learned of this same variant and it makes sense to me.

And I am fine with the idea that I can't find out from her what she would have bid had she not momentarily forgotten what they were playing.

Case closed.

kenberg, on 2016-August-17, 16:33, said:

There are many cases where an irregularity ends up with our side having less information than would have been the case otherwise. Take the classic case of dealer holding a strong NT opposite partner's POOT and bidding 3NT rather than having the normal 1NT - 3NT auction. I am sure you would not consider it correct to know what Opener would have called without the POOT. Or a UI case where the player ethically punts the grand slam rather than go through a subtle investigative auction because the UI suggests staying low.

Your example case reminds me of playing in the Young Chelsea. LHO opened a weak NT and partner doubled. RHO redoubled with an alert, described as "automatic". Enquiring they explained that he has to redouble on any hand, something which I found difficult to believe. Much later I found out that there is a convention known as Automatic Redouble but it means somethign else. To this day I do not know if they were actually playing this convention (and gave MI) or misunderstood the convention and were really playing it as described.

Another point I would make about this example is that your opps appear not to have given full disclosure. The 1♣ opening should not only have been described as short but also forcing. A forcing opening allows for a wider range of defences to be played so they are gaining an advantage by this obfuscation.

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-18, 03:21, said:

True, the 1C should have been described by respinder as "Two or more clubs, forcing me to bid 1D" or some such. Playing a system where after one round of bidding responder knows that opener has two or more clubs and opener knows absolutely nothing seems seriously weird. I always have the lingering feeling that there must be something that they aren't telling me, they can't be playing a system as dumb as this sounds. Knowing that opener holds two or more clubs no doubt can be useful at times but I can't see using a whole round of bidding simply to get this said.

kenberg, on 2016-August-17, 16:18, said:

See barmar's post above. I didn't understand why opener would bid 3♦ to show a 4-card major.

Also, bidding 4♣ and/or 4♦ to show both majors is really wasteful over 1NT-3♣ or 2NT-♣.

Vampyr, on 2016-August-18, 06:27, said:

If you don't have the agreement I described above, it's the normal response. I suspect most people play the same response structure after 1NT-3♣ as they do after 2NT-3♣, simply to avoid complicating things.

Quote

Over 1NT you don't bid 3♣ with both majors, you just bid 2♣ -- there's no point in using Puppet Stayman if you're not trying to find a 5-3 fit.

barmar, on 2016-August-18, 09:14, said:

Pretty poor reason for serious information leakage. Anyway you don't really need the agreement you described. Responder 4-3 can just bid the 4-carder. But you may be concerned about right-siding issues if you play a strong NT.

Quote

Well, yes you are right, but my point still stands after a 2NT opening.

Vampyr, on 2016-August-18, 06:27, said:

I use all of 1NT - 2♣ (PS); 2♦ - 3♣, 2NT - 3♣ (mod PS); 3♦ - 4♣ and 2NT - 3♣ (mod PS); 3♦ - 4♦ for various hands with both majors and do not consider my structure particularly wasteful. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is so bad within the context of a system built around it.

Fascinating as this discussion might be, can we stop discussing the technical merits of puppet stayman responses in a "simple" rulings topic on disclosure. Please.

RMB1, on 2016-August-18, 10:25, said:

Fair enough, my apologies. A leads to b leads to C, time to stop.

RMB1, on 2016-August-18, 10:25, said:

Sorry, didn't realise anyone was still interested in discussing the ruling.

kenberg, on 2016-August-18, 06:14, said:

Probably "two or more clubs, 12+ points (or whatever their minimum requirement is), forcing". Otherwise, their opponents might think they're playing Precision.