[bid_em_up]

---

Opponents are silent.

1♣-2♦*
5♣-?

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.

Your call?

[Winstonm]

Pass. No second-guessing myself.

[JLOL]

I would bid slam but I would never have shown an invitational hand so I guess it's pretty moot. I think slam must be percentage now though, partner is a big favorite to hold a diamond void and 2 (or 3) aces I think.

[TylerE]

Was wondering if this would make an appearance at some point or another...

[gwnn]

Why am I told what partner explained?

[bid_em_up]

gwnn, on Feb 6 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Why am I told what partner explained?

Because its face to face and you heard it.

[JLOL]

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 6 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Why am I told what partner explained?

Because its face to face and you heard it.

LOL

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 6 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Why am I told what partner explained?

Because its face to face and you heard it.

Standard operating procedure is post the hand without us knowing partner's alert (just tell us what we thought the agreement was when we bid.) Then ask us what we would do. Then divulge sneakily at a later point that we had UI and that our poll has suggested passing is/isn't a logical alternative.

Anyway as you stated the problem (knowing I heard the alert) I pass. There are clearly a number of hands that won't make slam (at least I think it's clear, but who the heck knows what a 5♣ bid is opposite an unlimited limit raise + responder), so I don't see how pass can fail to be a logical alternative. Without the UI I suspect I would have bid 6.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 6 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Why am I told what partner explained?

Because its face to face and you heard it.

Standard operating procedure is post the hand without us knowing partner's alert (just tell us what we thought the agreement was when we bid.) Then ask us what we would do. Then divulge sneakily at a later point that we had UI and that our poll has suggested passing is/isn't a logical alternative.

Anyway as you stated the problem (knowing I heard the alert) I pass. There are clearly a number of hands that won't make slam (at least I think it's clear, but who the heck knows what a 5♣ bid is opposite an unlimited limit raise + responder), so I don't see how pass can fail to be a logical alternative. Without the UI I suspect I would have bid 6.

The problem is.... this was our opponents bidding. I have no clue what the 2D bidder thought it meant, only what the explanation was. And the 2D bidder heard the explanation.

If I didn't post the explanation, I would get berated for not explaining what 2D was......

(It gets better than this, btw).

[jdonn]

They didn't have a convention card?

Anyway I know what you are saying. One of my worst experiences with an opponent at the table was along the same lines. My partner opened 1♥ in first seat, 1NT on my right, 3♥ by me, 3NT on my left. My partner doubled and RHO redoubled. LHO alerted the redouble as showing doubt. LHO ran to 4♦ and rho bid 5♦. My partner led something and dummy was exactly AJx Kx KJT9x AQT.

Now what I thought might have happened was RHO had redoubled simply to play, but when his partner ran he 'compensated' and bid one more since his partner's alert showed that he now had lots of extra strength. So I called the director and told him that and the opponents were LIVID. How could I accuse them of such a thing, of course he has doubt because he has a single heart stopper, etc etc. It ended up not mattering since 5♦ went down but all I can say is if, as they claimed to me, all minimums and any maximums with a single stopper redouble on this auction, I simply don't believe them even to this day. I mean seriously, does anyone else redouble on this auction 80% or 90% of the time?? At best "doubt" is not really an adequate explanation for such a thing IMO.

[JLOL]

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

[TylerE]

Assume that both know and vigorously agree that 2♦ is exactly invitational.

[jdonn]

TylerE, on Feb 6 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

Assume that both know and vigorously agree that 2♦ is exactly invitational.

Sorry for another story, but there was an appeal almost exactly like that in an old NABC casebook where the opponents insisted there was no misunderstanding of any kind, but their hand suggested otherwise. 1♦ p 3♦ p 5♦ p 6♦, 3♦ alerted and explained as weak. The player had like a 2155 9 count. He claimed (and I believe him) it was weak because their range for that is 0-9, but if his partner could make game opposite 0 he could make slam opposite 9. I know he ended up winning, but I don't know if the committee upheld a ruling in his favor or reversed a ruling against him.

[bid_em_up]

Before this gets any worse, I will just state: I was simply trying to find out if pass was a logical alternative.

There was a break in tempo before the 1C opening (this was the last board of a 7 board match, so we had a reasonable feeling for the opponents normal rhythm of bidding). The gentleman thought for about 1 minute before opening.

There was a break in tempo before the 2D bid, about 30 seconds.

There was a break in tempo of about 1 1/2 minutes before the 5C bid, while the guy stared at his cards, consulted the ceiling, stared at his cards, checked to see if the answer had appeared on the ceiling yet, and finally bids 5C.

Then the guy with this hand bid 6C in about 10 seconds, and then neither of them understood why we called the director. The director said, play the hand, call me back if we felt there was a problem. After all the BIT's and then dummy hits with this aceless wonder, we called the director back. They argued back and forth, the director went away and consulted some other directors, and eventually returned stating that pass was a logical alternative and rolled it back to 5C+1. They still wanted to appeal....but eventually changed their minds.

To make matters worse, the man held:

---

and it had become clear and obvious through all of his theatrics that he held some sort of really good hand (imo). 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.

Is it any wonder that I no longer play f2f?

[skjaeran]

Of course with ALL that UI, you've got to pass 5♣. Since that's obviously a logical alternative.

Btw, unless the pair in question were true beginners, I'd apply a procedural penalty, in addition to rolling back to 5♣+1.

[helene_t]

I think I would have passed even without the UI, although as Josh says, who the heck knows what 5♣ is.

As for the situation with UI I agree with Harald and others.

[Phil]

I don't know if passing 5♣ is really a LA, but we can't tell now. 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.

What exactly was their agreement?

[bid_em_up]

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

What exactly was their agreement?

Both players swore up and down vehemently that 2D was "Strictly Invitational", and that it was not "invitational or better".

While I don't know the players (maybe Tyler does and can verify), the director did explain to our team later that they did tend to be on the slow side normally. Unfortunately, they had not been so for the duration of the match prior to this hand, and that was all I (we) had to base it on.

[blackshoe]

Technically, the ZT regulation does not give the TD discretion - if there's a ZT violation, it's an automatic quarter board penalty.

[Mbodell]

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.