[bid_em_up]

Mbodell, on Feb 6 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner.  When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you".  I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty.

Well saying "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you" is really saying "I'm sorry, but you are an unethical liar". And while that may be what you feel, that is subject to ZT type behavior. Since you are talking about his behavior I think you could just say something along the lines of "While you may not have realized it, it was clear to us that you were acting in this manner" or something along those lines.

Nonsense. I said what I meant. If I wanted to call the guy an unethical liar, that is exactly what I would have said.

[JLOL]

What exactly is the UI supposed to be?

If you are suggesting there was UI from the BIT before opening 1C showing a good hand, well maybe but when they bid 5C they also are showing a good hand anyways and it's not clear to me what a BIT before opening 1C shows (maybe 55 blacks, maybe a marginal opener, maybe a hand that is upgrading from 1N, maybe... etc). Not much there.

If you are suggesting there was UI from teh BIT before bidding 5C I disagree, that doesn't really show anything in particular. Maybe they are thinking of trying for 3N, maybe they're thinking about whether to jump to game or just try for game, maybe they're thinking of trying for slam etc...

If you are suggesting there is UI from the explanation of 2D=invitational and not inv+ then that is only true if 2D was actually inv+. If the opps can show that their agreement is inv then there was no UI, responder just made a dumb bid (I had only 10 points!). If the opps cannot show that their agreement was inv then you just have to judge it, but depending on the level of the players I don't think treating this hand as inv is TOO outlandish (10 points LOL) to just say that it is impossible that someone did that so they must be lying and you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So basically I'm not clear what UI there was that people think the player took advantage of that suggested bidding 6C.

[JLOL]

Phil, on Feb 6 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

If I thought our agreement was limit or better, personally I would have gone to 6 (pard isn't interested in 3N; so one of my stiffs is facing garbage yada yada).

If our agreement was exactly invitational, clearly I have misbid or forgot our agreements until pard woke me up, and bidding 6 ain't allowed. Frankly, I'd vote for flogging.

Huh? This seems backwards. If your agreement is inv+ and partner said it is just inv then he might have a hand worth a slam try opposite an inv+ 2D bid but no slam interest opposite just an inv hand. This suggests bidding 6 since our hand is the "plus."

On the other hand if our agreement is inv then I have no UI if I meant it as inv and am just gambling. I think you really cannot rule against someone if they say they meant it as inv and that is their agreement. The hand is 10 HCP and I could see a lot of bad players not thinking it's worth a GF (partner could have 3C and 12 points!) but then bidding slam. There are a lot of instances in bridge laws where the honor code applies and someone can lie and get away with it, but that's the nature of the game. You can't just say they are lying without a really conclusive example imo.

[kfay]

Doesn't this all depend on what our agreement actually is?

If our agreement that 2♦ is GF or inv+ fit jump or something then I'm not barred from bidding 6♣.

After the tank I think I'm barred. Pass is a LA, imo.

Maybe I'm wrong about the rules. I never know.

[Winstonm]

JLOL, on Feb 6 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

Obviously if I meant 2D as inv+ and I had UI I would pass now btw. That wasn't specified though.

You didn't read the whole post?

Quote

Your partner duly alerts and explains that your 2D bid shows an invitational (only) hand in clubs. Inquiry is made by the opponents as to whether or not it can be invitational plus, or is it strictly invitational, and the answer given is strictly invitational.

This was the basis for my answer. Obviously, the post wasn't intended to get responses into the evaluation of the hand, but what to do once a certain evaluation (forced by the post) has been made.

My answer is the same still: if I make the judgement that my hand is limited, it doesn't become unlimited when my partner signs off.

[jdonn]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

[Phil]

JLOL, on Feb 7 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 6 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

If I thought our agreement was limit or better, personally I would have gone to 6 (pard isn't interested in 3N; so one of my stiffs is facing garbage yada yada).

If our agreement was exactly invitational, clearly I have misbid or forgot our agreements until pard woke me up, and bidding 6 ain't allowed. Frankly, I'd vote for flogging.

Huh? This seems backwards. If your agreement is inv+ and partner said it is just inv then he might have a hand worth a slam try opposite an inv+ 2D bid but no slam interest opposite just an inv hand. This suggests bidding 6 since our hand is the "plus."

On the other hand if our agreement is inv then I have no UI if I meant it as inv and am just gambling. I think you really cannot rule against someone if they say they meant it as inv and that is their agreement. The hand is 10 HCP and I could see a lot of bad players not thinking it's worth a GF (partner could have 3C and 12 points!) but then bidding slam. There are a lot of instances in bridge laws where the honor code applies and someone can lie and get away with it, but that's the nature of the game. You can't just say they are lying without a really conclusive example imo.

I think we are (in part) saying the same thing:

Agreement: Inv+.....Conclusion---> Bid 6

Agreement: Inv.......Conclusion---> Pass (and the director should back slam to game, but see below)

If, in my own mind, called this hand an invitational hand (and thats what our agreement is, after all, hell, I only have 10 points), then I think I have to pass, but yeah I could get away with somehow saying this hand is worth an upgrade to 6 once pard bids 5. I think it sucks too, since pard's alerting clearly woke us up. Clearly this player is dumb like a fox.

You wonder what would have happened in this case with screens.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

[kfay]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

[orlam]

kfay, on Feb 7 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

[kfay]

orlam, on Feb 7 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

kfay, on Feb 7 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

You're implying partner might say it was invitational when he knows it's actually something else?

Now you are getting in much more trouble.

[jdonn]

Winston I don't understand your point lol. Are you saying since we have shown an invitational hand, we aren't allowed to think slam is making since partner hasn't tried for slam opposite an invitational hand? That we can't think our hand is too good for our first bid, since that is the bid that was chosen? I'll keep my brain turned on thanks.

To put it another way, take your example auction of 1♠ 2♠ 4♠ 5♠ 6♠. You might say this makes no sense for responder to bid over 4♠ because opener has already rejected searching for slam. True. But what if you were given the problem as responder of what to do over 4♠ with Axxxxx - Kxx xxxx? Would you pass because by golly you have bid 2♠ and partner said there is no slam opposite a 2♠ bid, or would you realize that whatever you bid before, the hand you actually hold can very very easily be good enough for slam (probably due to a misbid last round, but such is the problem as given), and thus bid something?

[JLOL]

Phil, on Feb 7 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

I think we are (in part) saying the same thing:

Agreement: Inv+.....Conclusion---> Bid 6

Agreement: Inv.......Conclusion---> Pass (and the director should back slam to game, but see below)

Uhh no I have said the OPPOSITE twice.

[Winstonm]

kfay, on Feb 7 2009, 04:17 PM, said:

orlam, on Feb 7 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

kfay, on Feb 7 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

You're implying partner might say it was invitational when he knows it's actually something else?

Now you are getting in much more trouble.

I am fairly confident that I can read and comprehend English. The original post states:

Quote

Your partner duly alerts and explains that your 2D bid shows an invitational (only) hand in clubs. Inquiry is made by the opponents as to whether or not it can be invitational plus, or is it strictly invitational, and the answer given is strictly invitational.

There is no doubt - none, zero, nada - about the explained meaning of 2D. The answer is STRICTLY invitational.

How am I getting myself in trouble by saying that poster asked us to consider this an invitational only hand?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Are you saying since we have shown an invitational hand, we aren't allowed to think slam is making since partner hasn't tried for slam opposite an invitational hand?

Ta Da! We have a winner (Or close enough). Exactly what I am saying is that once we have elected to make a bid that is self-limiting, we turn captaincy over to partner and do not have the right to reclaim captaincy after partner makes what he thinks is a sign-off bid. (We can of course speculate that slam might be on but that is different than acting upon that speculation. If we think slam could be on in this sequence we have misbid our hand or partner has misbid his hand.)

Josh,

Your above points are excellent but make sure to read the part in parenthesis where I answer. My belief is that if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time.

At this point guessing about a possible correction of either bid is losing bridge IMO.

What prevents partner from holding KQx, AQJ, x, AJxxxx or KQx, AQJ, xx, AJxxx?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Josh,

Your above points are excellent but make sure to read the part in parenthesis where I answer.  My belief is that if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time.

At this point guessing about a possible correction of either bid is losing bridge IMO.

I am particularly focused on "if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time." I agree, we misbid our hand last time. To me that is a terrible reason to fail to correct our misbid if we get the chance.

If you take a wrong turn and you are headed toward a cliff, do you simply drive off the edge because turning back the way you came would be inconsistent with your previous turn? Or do you accept that you made a terrible decision earlier and do something about it when given the chance?

Btw, given that we hold a hand that shouldn't be possible to hold on this auction, passing 5♣ is as much of a guess as bidding 6♣ would be. So you make the guess with the best chance of being right. If you believe that is pass we can mildly disagree on bridge judgment. But if you believe that is 6♣ and you pass anyway then tomorrow we can share a cab on the way to your psychiatrist and my rubber bridge game.

Edit on seeing addendum to prior post: What is the point of using example hands? (btw he can't have the second one.) The forumula to bid 6♣ isn't p(make 6♣) = 100%. It's E(imps from 6♣) > E(imps from 5♣) + ε (I tossed in epsilon to represent aversion to variance.)

[MickyB]

I don't think there's any UI from the explanation here. What hand could possibly want to play in 5♣ opposite an invite but not have interest in slam opposite a stronger hand? Hell, it's hard enough to find a hand that would bid this way a hand known to be precisely invitational. My only worry is that opener conveyed info to responder with his body language, and that's very hard to prove (or disprove).

[Winstonm]

Quote

Btw, given that we hold a hand that shouldn't be possible to hold on this auction, passing 5♣ is as much of a guess as bidding 6♣ would be.

Josh,

I agree we hold a hand that should not bid an invitational only 2D.

The question asked, though, was not what to do when you misbid The question - the way it was framed - was what do you do with this hand after you have deemed it worthy of only an invitational bid.

My response to this question is still consistent. If for some reason I decided this hand was only worth an inviation, I would pass the 5C bid for the reasons I have given - the critical one being I forfeited captaincy by making a limit bid.

I would be much different if after bidding 2D I discovered I had the club Q hidden behind the K. But according to the post, everyone was aware of his/her hand at the time of the auction.

[jdonn]

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

[Winstonm]

Quote

What hand could possibly want to play in 5♣ opposite an invite but not have interest in slam opposite a stronger hand? Hell, it's hard enough to find a hand that would bid this way a hand known to be precisely invitational

See, this is where I think it gets weird. The way I read the post is that regardless of what we believe about the strength of the hand, the bidder in question judged it to be Exactly invitational. It is not a post about how to correct a misbid after partner shows up with a good hand.

I do not think there would be nearly such agreement if the auction had been 1M-3M(Limit raise)-4M-5M-6M. Most I am certain would claim UI in that auction. The fact that although an artificial bid was made, the acution was the equivalent of 1C-3C (limit raise)-5C-6C. How is this so different than the major?

Basically, it looks as though this thread has evolved - from what constitutes UI to how to evaluate this hand to how do you correct a bidding/evaluation error at the 5 level in one bid.