[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-December-02, 19:19, said:

Why not pass ? x, x, 10xxxxxx, Qxxx would be the sort of thing 3♦ shows.

3♠ very much smells of "partner prefers diamonds to hearts, so I'll bid spades".

Also it really shouldn't make, was a trump led or something ?

Passing 3♦ is only right if you have a specific agreement that it is natural. If it shows no preference between the majors, as four out of five intermediate players at my club thought, then it would not be. I expect the answer to any questions about the NS system is "undiscussed".

[szgyula]

How was 3S made? 2♠ and 2♦ loosers and 1 ♥ (Q or trumped, unless west played the ♠5 in a trump trick).

[VixTD]

szgyula, on 2016-December-07, 15:51, said:

How was 3S made? 2♠ and 2♦ loosers and 1 ♥ (Q or trumped, unless west played the ♠5 in a trump trick).

I can't answer that. All I know is that the lead was ♣A and nine tricks were made. The EW players were not very strong. Other scores on the board were 4♥ and 4♥X by South making eight tricks, 3NT and 5♣ by EW both making ten tricks.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2016-December-01, 08:40, said:

3S does not seem to take advantage of the UI. By the time it was bid, North had corrected the explanation, so he does not need waking up.

It seems that Lamford doesn't appreciate what the UI is here. The UI is that North misunderstood South when he bid 3♦, and that therefore, 3♦ doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean. The fact that North woke up later is hardly relevant (and also UI).

With the UI, South is supposed to bid as if 3♦ meant what it was supposed to mean (presumably a decent hand with good diamonds). But South didn't bid as if 3♦ showed diamonds. Instead, South bid 3♠, using the UI that 3♦ was intended as a mere preference between diamonds and (clubs or hearts, not entirely clear to me).

I agree with Cherdano that this hand is way to good to pass 3♦. But I would go even further: I would bid 5♣. (The OP states that NS are a partnership with scientific gadgets.) And I would be very happy that this wasn't IMPs.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2016-December-09, 03:44, said:

It seems that Lamford doesn't appreciate what the UI is here. The UI is that North misunderstood South when he bid 3♦, and that therefore, 3♦ doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean. The fact that North woke up later is hardly relevant (and also UI).

I do appreciate that the UI is that 3D was bid on the assumption that South had the red suits. We have to bid as though North correctly explained 2NT and then bid 3D. We do NOT know what that means in their methods. If it is no-preference, then 3H looks normal, and 5C would be ridiculous. If it is natural, then 3H looks normal as a forward move. I think that 3D is unlikely to be a spade raise, and South's 3S is indeed odd. But I cannot see how it takes advantage of the UI. Somebody suggested that it was an attempt to wake up North. But North (eventually) correctly explained 2NT. UI cannot arise from a correct explanation:

16A1c: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

So, the fact that your partner DOES know what your bid meant is authorised. Just as when your partner announces 15-17 correctly. The fact that he didn't when he bid 3D is unauthorised.

[szgyula]

lamford, on 2016-December-09, 06:31, said:

I do appreciate that the UI is that 3D was bid on the assumption that South had the red suits. We have to bid as though North correctly explained 2NT and then bid 3D. We do NOT know what that means in their methods.

I think this is the correct conclusion. We do not know what 3D means in their system. To be honest, I do not think you can actually figure this out.

As a matter of fact, I have an agreement with many of my occasional partners that "if I do not understand the bid, I do not pass". So pass is not a logical alternative in our system. We do play 2NT as a 2 suiter and we have no explicit agreement on a "4th suit" bid.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2016-December-09, 06:31, said:

I do appreciate that the UI is that 3D was bid on the assumption that South had the red suits. We have to bid as though North correctly explained 2NT and then bid 3D. We do NOT know what that means in their methods.

Of course we do know what 3♦ means in their methods. Every pair plays a bid as natural, unless they have agreed not to. If 3♦ would mean something fancy, NS would mention that and we would rule based on that. So, if NS don't mention anything, 3♦ is simply natural. It is not as if it is completely insane to play 3♦ as natural.

And if 3♦ is natural, a slam try in diamonds is the right move. And of all the slam tries in diamonds that are logical alternatives, those that could stear the contract into a major are very much disallowed since they are suggested over the others by the UI that North doesn't really have diamonds.

Rik

[sanst]

I'm with Rik here. If undiscussed it's natural unless that's impossible or ridiculous. Besides, the OP says "NS play a scientific, gadget-rich version of Acol", so it's unlikely that they have no agreement about the 3♦ answer if it shows anything but diamonds. Passing 3♦ is a possibility, but certainly not one I would choose. Raising is certainly an option, too. But 3♠ is blatant use of UI.

[StevenG]

Is playing in a minor at matchpoints when there are other options ever really sensible?

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2016-December-12, 11:26, said:

Is playing in a minor at matchpoints when there are other options ever really sensible?

Perhaps not. But here there are no other options. You have already shown your majors to partner and he has told you that he isn't interested. On top of that you are constrained by UI. So, IF (big if) looking for a major and looking for diamonds would both be options, you are not allowed to look for the major since it is suggested by the UI.

Going for diaomnds even more sensible when there are slam possibilities. Give partner ♠xx ♥xx ♦AKQxxx ♣xxx, the type of hand that he should have, and you have an excellent grand in diamonds and probably won't make 4♠ unless spades split 3-3. (And then I have given partner the maximum amount of spades.)

Rik

[StevenG]

Trinidad, on 2016-December-13, 01:40, said:

On top of that you are constrained by UI.

Yes, you are constrained by UI. That has nothing to do with bridge logic; the laws define it as what playes would consider, and what they would actually do, given the sequence without the UI. This is an English club matchpoints game. My experience (having played a lot of English club bridge) is that the number of players who would consider a diamond contract here is essentially zero. We are not talking about experts totally secure in their system. In practice, everyone (yes, everyone) would bash out a major suit. So I don't believe, however strong your bridge argument is, that anything other than a major suit bid is a LA. And, therefore, the only possible infraction in this case is the rather strange choice of major to bid.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2016-December-12, 02:13, said:

Every pair plays a bid as natural, unless they have agreed not to.

Every pair plays a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as natural, unless they have agreed not to ... Standard is to play 3D as no preference. I polled 23,681 players in the UK, and 19,423 played it as no-preference, although 4,678 had not discussed it. 3,211 played it as natural, and a tiny 789 played it as a spade raise. The others were don't knows, or "I don't play bridge, how did you get my phone number?"

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2016-December-15, 05:55, said:

Standard is to play 3D as no preference.

I apologize for not knowing that 3♦ means no preference in Standard Acol (or Standard Ghestem).

Thank you for enlightening me and for the trouble you took for finding a reliable source for that information.

Once again, my apologies.

Rik

[billw55]

VixTD, on 2016-November-30, 12:26, said:

North had asked South afterwards why he had bid spades rather than hearts, and he'd got the reply that it would allow North to bid hearts on the next round, or something like that. (Neither of us could make sense of this.)

I think some people are forgetting this bit. South was asked about his choice of bid, and his "explanation" included nothing about 3♦ being artificial, or no preference, or whatnot. Why would you assume things that the player himself omitted in his explanation? This tells me that 3♦ natural is within possibility in south's mind.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-December-15, 05:55, said:

Every pair plays a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as natural, unless they have agreed not to ... Standard is to play 3D as no preference. I polled 23,681 players in the UK, and 19,423 played it as no-preference, although 4,678 had not discussed it. 3,211 played it as natural, and a tiny 789 played it as a spade raise. The others were don't knows, or "I don't play bridge, how did you get my phone number?"

78.4% of statistics posted on the Internet are totally made up.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2016-December-15, 05:55, said:

Every pair plays a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as natural, unless they have agreed not to ... Standard is to play 3D as no preference. I polled 23,681 players in the UK, and 19,423 played it as no-preference, although 4,678 had not discussed it. 3,211 played it as natural, and a tiny 789 played it as a spade raise. The others were don't knows, or "I don't play bridge, how did you get my phone number?"

I suppose that the 3♦ bid is alertable, but in the OP it's not marked as having been alerted. Nonetheless, S bids as if it was alerted, otherwise a diamond raise or maybe a pass is more appropriate. Neither is it clear whether S said anything about the forgotten (?) alert after the auction.
That 3♦ is played by the majority as 'no preference' certainly makes sense, but is there any proof that it's also the agreement of this pair? Anyway, I still think it odd that it's not discussed by a pair playing a 'scientific, gadget-rich' system. Actually, I find it even odder that an occasional coupl uses such a system, in which it could be rather difficult to remember everything. This case proves my point. Keep it simple, folks!

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2016-December-15, 06:46, said:

I apologize for not knowing that 3♦ means no preference in Standard Acol (or Standard Ghestem).

Thank you for enlightening me and for the trouble you took for finding a reliable source for that information.

Once again, my apologies.

Rik

Actually, I suspect Kremlin tampering with my poll, so I do not think I can rely on it ...

[cherdano]

StevenG, on 2016-December-12, 11:26, said:

Is playing in a minor at matchpoints when there are other options ever really sensible?

Yes.

[Trinidad]

Playing 2♦ as "choose yourself" as an advance to Landy is much more useful than playing 3♦ as "choose yourself" as an advance to a 3♣ Ghestem bid.

After all, over 85% of Landy 2♣ bids have a disparity in major suit length, whereas this number is less than 25% for a Ghestem 3♣.

So when 2♦ (Landy) asks for a preference the true answer will be hearts in 43% of the case, spades in 43% of the cases and in 14% of the cases there is no true answer. For Ghestem, this is 12% hearts, 12% spades and 76% "I don't know". If you then only have bids to show hearts and spades, and none for "I don't know" this means that the replies to 3♦ are seriously unreliable. Essentially both 3♥ and 3♠ mean: "I do not have a preference for the other major and most likely I have no preference at all".

Rik

[diggory]

The best solution to this situation is to make it a hanging offence to agree to play some variety of ghestem and then get it wrong. What other convention causes such ill-feeling up and down the land?