Call for a vote

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

You are West. North opens 4S. Partner passes and South bids 4 NT.
You have a balanced hand, and you don't have spade A K Q.

What is your call if you hold 17 p?

What is your call if you hold 13 p?

[ais523]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
You are West. North opens 4S. Partner passes and South bids 4 NT.
You have a balanced hand, and you don't have spade A K Q.
What is your call if you hold 17 p?
What is your call if you hold 13 p?

What does South's 4NT mean? Natural nonforcing? Strong with a misfit?
Blackwood?

I'm definitely not willing to make any /bid/ with this sort of hand.
I am, however, seriously considering doubling (either now if 4NT is
non-forcing, or the final contract if 4NT is forcing). That said, if I
have no stop in spades, I'm unlikely to double 4NT specifically unless
the opponents reach slam (basically because the chance that the
opponents make 5S but not 4NT is too high and I don't want to scare
them into a making contract), which forces me to pass 4NT even on 17
HCP. (A spade stop would make it likely that both were going down,
making it more reasonable to double 4NT and then continue doubling
everything for the rest of the auction; I think most people would play
the double of 4NT as penalty.)

The strength I need to double isn't really based on HCP, it's more based
around quick tricks. A 13 HCP hand with a couple of Aces would be enough
to double, I think (especially if the opponents reached slam!). A 13 HCP
hand mostly in Queens and Jacks wouldn't be. A 17 HCP hand is much more
likely to have the right sort of quick-trick strength to double this,
but not guaranteed; something like xx KQxx KQJx KQx is 17 HCP but
not enough to double (4S), (4NT). (It's pretty likely that we won't get
to cash our four tricks after establishing them unless partner has one
of the missing Aces, and with both opponents bidding strongly I'd expect
them to be in the opponents' hands.)

I am a bit suspicious that RHO may be psyching, in which case someone
probably needs to double in order to protect our game; this isn't really
an issue if the opponents are vulnerable, but if they're nonvulnerable
it's possible I'll be forced into the double because partner is unlikely
to have enough to double. Thus, with a bad spade holding (e.g. xx or
xxx) and the opponents nonvulnerable, I think I may have to double 4NT
even though the opponents will run to spades, as otherwise partner
will have no idea whether to double 5S or not. However, with vulnerable
opponents, this isn't so much of a problem, so I'll assume RHO is
telling the truth and work on the basis of the above reasoning.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
You are West. North opens 4S. Partner passes and South bids 4 NT.
You have a balanced hand, and you don't have spade A K Q.
What is your call if you hold 17 p?
What is your call if you hold 13 p?

What does South's 4NT mean? Natural nonforcing? Strong with a misfit?
Blackwood?
I'm definitely not willing to make any /bid/ with this sort of hand.
I am, however, seriously considering doubling (either now if 4NT is
non-forcing, or the final contract if 4NT is forcing). That said, if I
have no stop in spades, I'm unlikely to double 4NT specifically unless
the opponents reach slam (basically because the chance that the
opponents make 5S but not 4NT is too high and I don't want to scare
them into a making contract), which forces me to pass 4NT even on 17
HCP. (A spade stop would make it likely that both were going down,
making it more reasonable to double 4NT and then continue doubling
everything for the rest of the auction; I think most people would play
the double of 4NT as penalty.)
The strength I need to double isn't really based on HCP, it's more based
around quick tricks. A 13 HCP hand with a couple of Aces would be enough
to double, I think (especially if the opponents reached slam!). A 13 HCP
hand mostly in Queens and Jacks wouldn't be. A 17 HCP hand is much more
likely to have the right sort of quick-trick strength to double this,
but not guaranteed; something like xx KQxx KQJx KQx is 17 HCP but
not enough to double (4S), (4NT). (It's pretty likely that we won't get
to cash our four tricks after establishing them unless partner has one
of the missing Aces, and with both opponents bidding strongly I'd expect
them to be in the opponents' hands.)
I am a bit suspicious that RHO may be psyching, in which case someone
probably needs to double in order to protect our game; this isn't really
an issue if the opponents are vulnerable, but if they're nonvulnerable
it's possible I'll be forced into the double because partner is unlikely
to have enough to double. Thus, with a bad spade holding (e.g. xx or
xxx) and the opponents nonvulnerable, I think I may have to double 4NT
even though the opponents will run to spades, as otherwise partner
will have no idea whether to double 5S or not. However, with vulnerable
opponents, this isn't so much of a problem, so I'll assume RHO is
telling the truth and work on the basis of the above reasoning.
--
ais523

Calling 4NT a psychic is inappropriate. It's made not to mislead the opponents, but because the bidder's defense will be better if they know how many aces are opposite.

I first learned of this in an article by Rixi Marcus.

Carl

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net
Calling 4NT a psychic is inappropriate. It's made not to mislead the
opponents, but because the bidder's defense will be better if they know
how many aces are opposite.
I first learned of this in an article by Rixi Marcus.

It only hurts you if you end up declaring, though (and by pushing
yourself to the 5 level, you are more likely to end up declaring,
especially when your suit is spades). If you know nothing about your
partner's hand other than that they passed over a 4S opening bid,
doesn't it make more sense with a strong balanced hand to defend 5S
doubled than to try to guess which slam (if any) makes?

I can see this argument for 4C ace-asking over a 3-level pre-empt, but
when the ace-ask has to be 4NT and the subsequent scramble 5S, it's hard
to see a gain even if your hand is really bad (and less of a gain if
your hand is fairly good, because in that case it's quite possible that
4S is the last making contract).

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
Calling 4NT a psychic is inappropriate. It's made not to mislead the
opponents, but because the bidder's defense will be better if they know
how many aces are opposite.
I first learned of this in an article by Rixi Marcus.

It only hurts you if you end up declaring, though (and by pushing
yourself to the 5 level, you are more likely to end up declaring,
especially when your suit is spades). If you know nothing about your
partner's hand other than that they passed over a 4S opening bid,
doesn't it make more sense with a strong balanced hand to defend 5S
doubled than to try to guess which slam (if any) makes?
I can see this argument for 4C ace-asking over a 3-level pre-empt, but
when the ace-ask has to be 4NT and the subsequent scramble 5S, it's hard
to see a gain even if your hand is really bad (and less of a gain if
your hand is fairly good, because in that case it's quite possible that
4S is the last making contract).
--
ais523

When you bid 4NT, you are hoping/assuming the opps will declare.

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net
When you bid 4NT, you are hoping/assuming the opps will declare.

But the opponents know you're forced to the five level. They'd have to
be fairly crazy to go six-over-five on nearly no information rather than
just taking the penalty. (Even five-over-five is normally regarded as
most commonly being a bad idea.)

The assumption that the opponents will declare once you've forced
yourself to the five level seems really overly optimistic.

[Pertinax]

Post by ***@verizon.net
Calling 4NT a psychic is inappropriate.

It is a sort of tactical psyche. 1S p 2S with 0 pts is still a psyche if your agreement is 5+ for 2S


Blackwood's stated aim is to check for 2 missing keycards before bidding 6, or any missing keycards before investigating 7. It show 2+ trick. Using it as sneaky preemptive raise to 5S is not the expected meaning. If you do it often it forms a partnership agreement. Though under delayed alerting rules you wouldn't have to alert it until it's too late. Of course if everyone does it then it is expected.

1S p 2S with 0 pts is still a psyche if your agreement is 5+ for 2S

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pertinax

Post by ***@verizon.net
Calling 4NT a psychic is inappropriate.

It is a sort of tactical psyche. 1S p 2S with 0 pts is still a psyche if your agreement is 5+ for 2S
Blackwood's stated aim is to check for 2 missing keycards before bidding 6, or any missing keycards before investigating 7. It show 2+ trick. Using it as sneaky preemptive raise to 5S is not the expected meaning. If you do it often it forms a partnership agreement. Though under delayed alerting rules you wouldn't have to alert it until it's too late. Of course if everyone does it then it is expected.
1S p 2S with 0 pts is still a psyche if your agreement is 5+ for 2S

Grossly violating your agreements should not be regarded as psychic unless its purpose is to fool the opponents about your hand. Raising to 2S with xxxxxxx x xx xxx is a value bid, with better prospects for a spade game than Axxx xxx Axx xxx. The fact that point count does not reflect that is a defect of point count.

Notice that is 4NT was alerted as "opposite a pre-empt, not necessarily with slam interest," the alert would not affect anything.

Carl

Carl

[Travis Crump]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
You are West. North opens 4S. Partner passes and South bids 4 NT.
You have a balanced hand, and you don't have spade A K Q.
What is your call if you hold 17 p?
What is your call if you hold 13 p?

I think a sensible strategy is just make the same call as if 4S had been
passed to you. With a flat 13 HCP, you'd likely pass, so pass. With a
flat 17 HCP, it is a closer decision based on your actual hand.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Travis Crump
I think a sensible strategy is just make the same call as if 4S had been
passed to you. With a flat 13 HCP, you'd likely pass, so pass. With a
flat 17 HCP, it is a closer decision based on your actual hand.

Okay, that was two votes.

The reasom I ask is that there was a table (and I don't have the
hands) where West opened with a pass out of turn - not accepted.
Then North opened 4S, East passed, and South bid 4NT.

The question now is if it is possible for West to find a
comparable call in which case there would be no rectification.
Some TD's think that pass would be a comparable call. I don't,
because I think that there are a number of opening hands that
would pass after 4NT, and they of course would not open with a
pass.

What do you (all) think?

[ais523]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Travis Crump
I think a sensible strategy is just make the same call as if 4S had been
passed to you. With a flat 13 HCP, you'd likely pass, so pass. With a
flat 17 HCP, it is a closer decision based on your actual hand.

Okay, that was two votes.
The reasom I ask is that there was a table (and I don't have the
hands) where West opened with a pass out of turn - not accepted.
Then North opened 4S, East passed, and South bid 4NT.
The question now is if it is possible for West to find a
comparable call in which case there would be no rectification.
Some TD's think that pass would be a comparable call. I don't,
because I think that there are a number of opening hands that
would pass after 4NT, and they of course would not open with a
pass.
What do you (all) think?

There are plenty of hands that would want to open, but silenced after
4NT by the opponents. Once the opponents have forced themselves to 5S
unilaterally, you're nearly always going to want to defend; and if your
hand is unsuitable for defence, you're just going to let the opponents
play it rather than risk getting doubled for a ridiculous amount.

I believe most people would consider a hand like xx AJxxxx KQx Qxx to be
an opening bid, but it's also a terrible hand to intervene over 4NT
with; if you bid 5H you're highly likely to be doubled into oblivion
(partner could well have nothing, especially as they were silent over
4S), if you double partner may well double 5S and then see them make
anyway (there's a decent chance an opponent has a heart void or
diamond singleton).

I think the vulnerability could easily have been relevant to this
question (we're basically talking about a sacrifice decision in many
cases); my example hand is a clear pass vulnerable but there's more of
an argument if not vulnerable (especially at matchpoints). That said, I
think my answer is the same either way.

Incidentally, if you're playing weak twos, the argument is even clearer.
xx AQxxxx xxx xxx is an opening bid of 2H in many systems. It comes
nowhere close to a bid of 5H over 4NT, which has very little chance of
being an acceptable sacrifice unless partner happens to also have long
hearts. (The opponents /might/ have a slam on, but they're probably
more likely to go wrong in the game-vs-slam decision if you stay quiet
than if you intervene; if you're lucky, they might even bid slam and
fail to make it, which is probably your only way to go plus.) So the
pass over 4NT has no way to deny a hand like that, which the opening
pass does deny.

Incidentally, although West has no comparable call, I don't think that
matters much in this situation; after passing over 4S, I can't imagine
East wanting to do anything other than pass anyway (unless East has
two likely-cashing quick tricks and the opponents bid slam), so the only
real issue is UI, and this isn't an auction where I'd expect the UI to
have much impact on the play.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
The reasom I ask is that there was a table (and I don't have the
hands) where West opened with a pass out of turn - not accepted.
Then North opened 4S, East passed, and South bid 4NT.
The question now is if it is possible for West to find a
comparable call in which case there would be no rectification.

The question is whether a subsequent pass has "the same or similar
meaning" (L23A1) as the original POOT. It's certainly not the same, but
perhaps it's close enough to be similar. I agree with you that nearly
all 13-counts will pass 4NT and most balanced 17-counts will pass. Some
will double, which I play as takeout of spades, but some play double as
penalty-oriented. Hands this strong are ruled out by the initial POOT,
but they won't be common in this auction, where responder is likely to
be strong (but could, as others have mentioned, be joking).

Let's take a look at 2nd hand's problem after opener responds to 4NT
(presumably showing key cards). 2nd hand is only going to be bidding at
the 6-level with extreme shape (and weak high cards to explain the pass
directly over 4S). The initial POOT, if 2nd hand were allowed to use
that information, seems to make bidding less attractive, though that
could depend on vulnerability and form of scoring. So I think I'd rule
pass to be a comparable call, and let 2nd hand bid if he does in fact
have extreme shape. The worry would be if he has extreme shape and
passes, in which case L23C might apply, but that's better than forcing
the pass in the first place.

I don't think this ruling is at all clear, and either way you go can be
justified. It would be great to consult on the ruling, but you have to
make it in real time, so that's not practical.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Willner
I don't think this ruling is at all clear, and either way you go can be
justified. It would be great to consult on the ruling, but you have to
make it in real time, so that's not practical.

The question was presented in a Danish forum for tournament
directors, and indeed there are two different views on the
comparability of the pass. They are both held by international
TDs.

The problem arose during our Bridge Festival. The TD ruled that
pass was a comparable call, but later began to doubt his own
ruling. The majority of the other TDs he then asked, found that
it was comparable. I don't.

[Lorne]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Steve Willner
I don't think this ruling is at all clear, and either way you go can be
justified. It would be great to consult on the ruling, but you have to
make it in real time, so that's not practical.

The question was presented in a Danish forum for tournament
directors, and indeed there are two different views on the
comparability of the pass. They are both held by international
TDs.
The problem arose during our Bridge Festival. The TD ruled that
pass was a comparable call, but later began to doubt his own
ruling. The majority of the other TDs he then asked, found that
it was comparable. I don't.

There are definitely hands that ould pass 4N but would have openeed so
there is some UI.

If I understand correctly the only time you need to rule is when you
think E might make a call when 4N or (presuambly) 5S is passed back to
him. Is that what was suggested at the table ? If so what was the E
hand ?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Lorne
There are definitely hands that ould pass 4N but would have openeed so
there is some UI.
If I understand correctly the only time you need to rule is when you
think E might make a call when 4N or (presuambly) 5S is passed back to
him.

... if East makes a call (whatever the other bids). Your hidden
suggestion - that there is no practical problem - is probably
true, but I have no more information than I have disclosed.

The problem was presented in a Danich forum for TD's for learning
purposes. The interesting thing is the comparable issue.