[tsigalko]

free bid by opponents

1NT(15-17)-2♣-2♥-3NT-4♠-5♦ ALL PASS there was screen at the table.

my partner called the director after we finished the board and his decision was that there wasn't anything blameworthy at the bidding.we said that it was a psychic bidding in order to avoid a possible major leading when the dummy had a singleton and a doubleton. so 5 ♦ should be cue bid with ♠ fit and if the opener had a maximum 1nt should have accepted and continue the bidding the final contract should be 6♠ or in case of a minimum 1nt the final contract should be 5♠

any opinion about it?

thank you and sorry for my english

[ggwhiz]

It seems as if 5♦ should be forcing or the psyche has been fielded.

If you move your post to the Laws and Rulings section (at the bottom) you will get responses from Directors that are much more experienced than I am.

[RMB1]

tsigalko, on 2011-November-28, 12:38, said:

1NT(15-17)-2♣-2♥-3NT-4♠-5♦ ALL PASS there was screen at the table.

my partner called the director after we finished the board and his decision was that there wasn't anything blameworthy at the bidding.we said that it was a psychic bidding in order to avoid a possible major leading when the dummy had a singleton and a doubleton. ...

I assume declarer (responder) had a singleton and a doubleton.

I do not think there were necessarily any psychic bids on the auction. I think that there was a disagreement about the meaning of 3NT (which means there was also an implicit lack of agreement about 2♣). Opener has shown a balanced hand, with 4 ♥ and then 4 ♠. Responder has shown interest in 4 card majors, a desire to play in 3NT, and a desire to play in 5♦.

Responder thinks he can bid 2♣ and then 3NT on hand with short hearts. Opener thinks 3NT shows a balanced hand with a 4 card major. It is possible that the opponents would/could have explained what the bids meant, and the disagreement, at the end of the auction.

[barmar]

Assuming there was a psyche, there's no law against it. So the only problem is if the opponents have an agreement about this auction, but haven't disclosed it.

There's no prohibition against fielding a psyche, only against having an agreement that serves as a psychic control.

[vang]

responder bid 3NT which can be passed. so, 5D cannot be slam-inviting with spades. because one cannot be slam invitational and risk to stop in 3nt. 5D it's obviously to play by bridge logic.

[Trinidad]

It is also possible that responder planned to ask for the minors after a 2♦ response (when there must be a great fit in one or both minors) or a 2♠ response (when he wouldn't want to play 3NT with a heart singleton opposite at most 3 hearts). However, the 2♥ response made playing in 3NT more interesting because of the heart length (and probable values) with opener.

Opener didn't get this and thought that 2♣, followed by 3NT guaranteed a four card major.

In that case, the players are just on different wave lengths and there is no psyche or anything like it.

I would also have passed 5♦. Partner can hardly be making a slam try after having bid 3NT the round before.

Rik

[jschafer]

I disagree with the people saying 5♦ cannot be a slam try. It is completely reasonable to sign off in 3NT (with a near slam invite) under the assumption you do not have a ♠ fit; while at the same time making a move for slam when there is a ♠ fit after all.

[Fluffy]

wrong forum, if you want directors to check try on the laws forums

[MrAce]

5♦ is % 100 ♠ fit and forward going.

If it was natural, why did not he bid 3♦ over 2♥ ? If what he wanted was just to play 3 Nt then why did he start stayman ? It doesn't add up. If he started stayman for fooling opponents, thats fine but then his pd can not act like he didnt see the stayman.

[Trinidad]

MrAce, on 2011-November-30, 23:57, said:

If it was natural, why did not he bid 3♦ over 2♥ ? If what he wanted was just to play 3 Nt then why did he start stayman ?

As I said above, it is perfectly possible that responder had a 2155 or 2254 hand (e.g ♠KJ♥xx♦Kxxxx♣Axxx). If the response to Stayman would have been 2♦ or 2♠, he would have followed up by asking for the minors (e.g. with 3♣) to play in their best minor fit. Opposite a four card heart suit, he wanted to play in 3NT.

Opener wasn't on the same wavelength, and thought that Stayman, followed by 3NT promissed a four card major. With a 2155 or 2254 hand, responder certainly didn't want to play 4♠. Opener realized who was captain and passed 5♦.

I play with two partners and with both partners I actually have agreements about this. With one of them, I can only ask for minors after Stayman. With him, therefore, 3NT promises four spades on this auction. With the other, I can ask for minors and spades after a 2♦ response. With her, 3NT doesnot promiss four spades, but is to play. (Actually, 3NT denies four spades.)

If these two partners of mine would play together (which will only happen if hell freezes over), they could easily produce this auction. Both of them will be sensible enough to realize that
- there may be a misunderstanding
- it is highly unlikely that responder is making a slam try after having signed off in 3NT
- they can look in their hand to find out whether 5♦ was a slam try. If they hold a diamond control and no club control, it is even more unlikely that 5♦ would be a slam try, since if there would have been a slam try, the bid would have been 5♣.

Before people suggest that there is any foul play, I would think it would be better if the TD were called. S/He would know that misunderstandings do happen and would ask the players (in this case mainly responder) why the auction went as it went.

Rik

[MrAce]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-01, 01:10, said:

As I said above, it is perfectly possible that responder had a 2155 or 2254 hand (e.g ♠KJ♥xx♦Kxxxx♣Axxx). If the response to Stayman would have been 2♦ or 2♠, he would have followed up by asking for the minors (e.g. with 3♣) to play in their best minor fit. Opposite a four card heart suit, he wanted to play in 3NT.

Opener wasn't on the same wavelength, and thought that Stayman, followed by 3NT promissed a four card major. With a 2155 or 2254 hand, responder certainly didn't want to play 4♠. Opener realized who was captain and passed 5♦.

I play with two partners and with both partners I actually have agreements about this. With one of them, I can only ask for minors after Stayman. With him, therefore, 3NT promises four spades on this auction. With the other, I can ask for minors and spades after a 2♦ response. With her, 3NT doesnot promiss four spades, but is to play. (Actually, 3NT denies four spades.)

If these two partners of mine would play together (which will only happen if hell freezes over), they could easily produce this auction. Both of them will be sensible enough to realize that
- there may be a misunderstanding
- it is highly unlikely that responder is making a slam try after having signed off in 3NT
- they can look in their hand to find out whether 5♦ was a slam try. If they hold a diamond control and no club control, it is even more unlikely that 5♦ would be a slam try, since if there would have been a slam try, the bid would have been 5♣.

Before people suggest that there is any foul play, I would think it would be better if the TD were called. S/He would know that misunderstandings do happen and would ask the players (in this case mainly responder) why the auction went as it went.

Rik

No need for all this analysis, TD can check their cc to see if they have minor suit stayman. If they dont u may have a point.

[RMB1]

There is no legal basis for the TD to change the score. There is nothing illegal about an agreement/understanding that 5♦ is to play on this auction.

If you decided that 5♦ must be a slam try with ♠ agreed: what law has been broken, what law tells you how to adjust the score?

[han]

Was there any basis for the director call, such as a serious break in tempo? We can discuss how we would play the unusual 5D bid, but it isn't relevant unless there was UI.

[MrAce]

RMB1, on 2011-December-01, 03:09, said:

There is no legal basis for the TD to change the score. There is nothing illegal about an agreement/understanding that 5♦ is to play on this auction.

If you decided that 5♦ must be a slam try with ♠ agreed: what law has been broken, what law tells you how to adjust the score?

IF we all decided that 5♦ is ♠ fit

The law that says " no controlled psyce " may have been broken. Adjusting part is easy, ethique part/punishment is the dirty job for TD.

IF we found out from their cc or whatever that this is slam bid with spades, then TD could ask the NT opener "How did you figure out that this time your pd made an exception, and how did your pd figure that you would understand this exception and pass ?"

It is probably not a secret illegal agreement but it maybe habbit of being alert to pd's frequent psyce or deceptive bids, which is not allowed either if i remember correctly. But more likely a pair who doesnt have much clue, or perhaps a pair who simply doesnt play slam invitations after they settled in 3NT or simply a pair who plays everything natural if not discussed and this is one of the undiscussed auction for them. Who knows.