Yet another query regarding insufficient bids and comparable calls !

2»

Comments

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @Martin said:

    Not that I think that it is a good bid, but whilst 4NT is something of a stretch, I see it as a 2-way gambling bid. Either partner has something and 4NT can make, or he has nothing and 4H or even 6H is a lay down. If doubled for penalties then they can rescue later...?

    Not sure why the IB side should have anywhere to go when the doubling starts, although of course it may not.

    @Martin said:

    In terms of the ruling (rather than whether it is a good bid or not), for me, 27 B 1(a) states that the bidding continues without further rectification.

    Only if the same denomination is specified, as to which I share the doubts that have been expressed by other posters.

    Most partnerships will be in one of the following positions (other nuances may be available!) in relation to a 4NT overcall of an opposing 4!h :
    (a) they have some definite agreement;
    (b) they have no explicit agreement, but they have something implicit in their partnership style or from agreements in comparable situations which may incline one partner to make the bid with some confidence that the other partner will read it correctly;
    (c) they have no agreement, and nothing to help them, although some recognition of the possible options (most people would recognise, for example, that "minors" was a possible option; some would assume that Blackwood was a possible option, even if they did not have any idea what partner would think the bid actually meant); or
    (d) they have no idea at all.

    I'm afraid I don't buy the proposition that "no agreement" must mean "natural".* "No agreement" is no agreement, and I don't think we should be ruling on the basis of projecting some meaning of our choice (even "natural") onto a pair with no agreement.

    By all means rule that a call does or does not specify the same denomination is a case where the pair is in area (a) or (b) above. But I don't think it's clear to rule that 4NT specifies the same denomination in case (c) or (d).

    *Of course it is sensible for a partnership to have a philosophy that undiscussed bids are natural, that undiscussed doubles are for penalty, or whatever it might be, but those are meta-agreements that bring them into case (b).

    So how would you rule in cases (c) and (d)? The TD has to rule one way or the other.

  • @Martin said:
    As for making immediate decisions, I normally find it best to make a decision as best you can (when operating as a player director I don't want to look at a hand I have not yet played)... but leave the proviso that we can revisit at the end. Often, this means giving the standard tricks only for revokes (for example), then check again later.

    For me, a large part of the more social directors role is to keep the members happy and coming back for more. So I try to avoid any definite ruling, off the cuff, as this can make 1 person or pair feel victimised. By handling it in this way, I find that it keeps everyone happy and defuses the situation. When looked at again later I find that everyone has calmed down, got over their embarrassment/defensiveness and a ruling is accepted more dispassionately.

    I entirely agree, but of course in this case you have to rule whether the IBer's partner is allowed to bid, to allow play to continue.

  • The question is one of 'what does 4NT show?'

    If their system is minors, or some other conventional meaning, then partner is barred from bidding
    If their system is natural, then partner can bid on

    If they have no agreement, then one could ask each separately and away from the table what, in their experience it would mean. If they agree, then that would be there intrinsic understanding, rather than explicit agreement and I would take it that and either bar/not bar and necessary.

    After the fact there may be some further consideration about damage to the non-offending pair

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @Martin said:
    As for making immediate decisions, I normally find it best to make a decision as best you can (when operating as a player director I don't want to look at a hand I have not yet played)... but leave the proviso that we can revisit at the end. Often, this means giving the standard tricks only for revokes (for example), then check again later.

    For me, a large part of the more social directors role is to keep the members happy and coming back for more. So I try to avoid any definite ruling, off the cuff, as this can make 1 person or pair feel victimised. By handling it in this way, I find that it keeps everyone happy and defuses the situation. When looked at again later I find that everyone has calmed down, got over their embarrassment/defensiveness and a ruling is accepted more dispassionately.

    I entirely agree, but of course in this case you have to rule whether the IBer's partner is allowed to bid, to allow play to continue.

    Exactly the point I have been making, that you have to rule one way or the other.

  • It is very unlikely that anyone plays 4N over 4H as natural, but possible - see Martin's post. If they do then they can bid 4N without barring partner, if not they bar partner. I would expect in clubs the most common uses for 4N would be, in order:

    Blackwood (4N is always Blackwood!)
    No idea, I would never bid it
    Minors
    Any two suits
    .
    .
    .
    Natural

    My partner and I play more natural 4N bids than any other pair I know, but not this one!

    In a club I would expect at least 150% of players who had bid a weak 1N to now pass.

Sign In or Register to comment.