Natural bid with a singleton
I had a query last night from a player in an online teams league. His hand was something like: AQx Qxx AJxxxx x. He's playing 5cM with a strong no trump. His partner opened 1D (3+), and not having a forcing diamond raise available, decided that 2C was the best response. His partner rebid 2NT (11-14) and he raised to three.
His opponents complained that he should have alerted his 2C bid if it could be made on a singleton. He argued that they had no agreement to make the bid on a singleton, he was just stuck for a forcing bid.
Who do you think is right? If they both think 2C is the only reasonable call on such a hand, do they need to alert and explain this possibility in future?
Comments
If both members of a partnership think this is the best shot then a. the opponents are entitled to know so an alert should be made as they have an agreement and b. they should increase their dose of medicine 😲
Steve, that's just how the offender explained his bid to me. I told him he didn't need to explain it this time as it wasn't expected by his (regular) partner, but now they will be aware of the possibility and should alert it and explain it could occasionally be a forcing hand with diamonds and possibly short clubs.
Do you think that was correct?
what Steve said I think, it's a psych. So we'd probably decide to record it, we might look to see if there's any fielding (probably not from the rebid of 2NT). Once is just a psych, if it becomes a habit it'll be an agreement.
If the partnership play splinters over minor suit openings 2C looks more like a misbid or psyche than a possible agreement, unless a similar situation has occurred previously. If, as suggested, the player believed they had no other bid available and didn't intend to misdescribe their hand then by definition it's not a psyche. Even if they don't play splinters over minor openings either 4D or 4NT are available although it's possible 4D might not be forcing ('not having a forcing diamond raise available'). Arguably it could then be the right bid although that's probably outside the scope of this discussion. In the absence of an understanding (40 C. 1.) about the 2C bid, 40 C. 2. applies: 'Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods'.
I had a case in the world championships in Marrakech this year when a player from a francophone country bid 1D in response to his partner's 1C opening with a 3325 hand prior to bidding 3NT on the next round. His opponents failed to find the diamond switch that was necessary to defeat the contract.
My enquiries led me to the discovery that in Standard French there is no forcing raise of minor suit openings, and so for francophone players it is just considered "normal" to bid this way. Since their opponents were from a Nordic country they weren't aware of this and I think were entitled to know it. The switch was not completely obvious in any case, so we ended up giving a weighted ruling in which they defeated the contract 60% of the time, if I recall correctly.
I think that there is misinformation in the original case. The pair should recognise that lack of a forcing raise may be solved (sometimes?) by bidding the other minor with less than 3 cards, and that this response is 'natural or a raise'.
Well, it's either or with the psyche. If you decide that they're playing 2C as "natural or a raise" then there's misinformation, but no distortion of the hand - this is just one of the hands they can have for the bid. Robin's might be a better approach.
I guess it's useful to consider whether if you gave them the same hand again, they'd make the same bid. I think a psyche almost by definition is an unusual action that they might take for tactical reasons.
I have some more information now. It seems the offender has done this sort of thing before, but years ago, so long ago and so infrequently that I am confident that his partner was not expecting it. His hand was:
K73 A104 AQ10854 8
Opening leader had: 652 KQ32 9 KJ963
If you were told the responder had either clubs or (rarely) a forcing diamond raise with short clubs, are you likely to lead a club?
This is what polls are for. The only card I definitely wouldn't lead is the 9 of diamonds. I'm more likely to lead a club with that explanation, certainly.
I'd agree with that, James. I'm just trying to work out whether it's clear not to lead a club with the given information and clear to lead one with the correct information. It sounds as if you are giving other leads serious consideration.
The obvious lead is a heart, that was my first thought. A spade lead could be right, although if partner had a chance to bid spades less so. A club lead is risky if 2C is clubs, it's still quite risky with the correct information. It might be the best chance to beat the contract in either case, I don't rate it as clear.
The problem they’ve encountered isn’t unusual for that bidding system; which is pretty much what Robin has said.
I wouldn’t be persuaded by the excuse, “we don’t have a forcing diamond raise available” when their alternative is to bid an artificial club that they don’t have either.
I would expect the diamond opener to be the better minor because they’re showing the suit, so partner might be short in clubs, as far as responder knows, when they bid 2C: but they will certainly be aware that the opponent are more likely to have the clubs than not, when they only have a singleton. Also, responder won’t want to bid NT with the likely chance that a club is led through dummy. Bidding the club means…
They aren’t bidding their hand and the situation isn’t so unusual for their bidding system that they wouldn’t have come across it before, or at the very least discussed the shortcomings in their openings.
I agree with the view that the potential artificial nature of the 2C bid should have been brought to the opponents attention.
For what it is worth, I was shown this hand on Wednesday, with the question, "playing 5-card majors and strong NT, your partner opens 1D and you have this hand... what do you bid?" My answer was, "I don't like that, I probably respond 2C and just force the issue"... then told that "partner responds 3NT, what do you do?" "pass" was my answer.
I think that people on here obviously think about bridge quite a bit and consider this very kind of situation. I also think that most other players do not discuss their systems beyond, "5-card major and strong NT?", "sure thing, better minors then?"
As a case in point, I played on Wednesday against a pair that have played together for a number of years now (probably 6 or so), the bidding went, 2D (Benji) - 2H (relay) - 3NT... When asked about the point range for 3NT, there were 2 sets of blank faces... when asked what would a 2NT rebid have show, 2 blank faces. Strong balanced hands are not that unusual to have not come up over the last few years and yet they still have not discussed and agreed anything.
Even though the questions were asked and they didn't know the answers, I know 100% that they will not now have a discussion about it and agree anything further than 2D is game forcing and that 2C - 2D - 2NT does not exist in their system!
I find it entirely plausible that the pair had not considered or discussed this situation previously. My guess is that if there was not an issue raised by the ops that they would not have considered the situation any further even after this hand occurred and would not have discussed it and agreed a method to force after a 1D open.
Most casual and semi-serious players I know are not that interested in refining their systems, maybe that is a reflection on the clubs I play in, but having played in at least 10 clubs around the UK, I think that this is norm outside of competition play.
Thanks Martin.
What you say sounds like a fair reflection of things at an average bridge club.
As you allude to at the end of your post, the pair in question are playing in an online league and will have had to prepare a convention card. The amount of effort they put into their agreement is their business.
Is this situation unique to 5cM Strong NT? I'm imagining a club session where I am host/TD with a pick partner who agrees to play ACOL and hasn't heard of either splinter or inverted minors let alone plays them.
Suppose I had a slightly stronger hand than the one mentioned, say 17 points 3361 opposite partner 1d. How in Acol with my novice pickup partner do I set up a GF, and investigate slam? Sure, I may punt 3N or 5d or even 6d, or 4N Blackwood, but manufacturing 2c might reveal something helpful, or sadly may put us into a very awkward club contract! And of course, my partner won't alert. And I am not convinced of the need to notify oppos of my unusual should I become dummy. Sometimes we manufacture bids.
Hi Graham
Perhaps this is more philosophical than 'good bridge law', but the damage we do to ourselves is our responsibility and the damage we do to the opposition is also our responsibility. The former has no excuse and will stand, but the latter better have a good excuse or the TD will remedy.
The deeper into the bidding sequence we go, the more likely the manufactured bid is unforeseeable and consequently acceptable. A 2C response to 1D opener is very much at the shallow-end.
Playing 5CM Strong NT a 1 minor opening is usually a hand that would open a weak NT playing ACOL. This is particularly true when responder has 3361 shape. I dealt 5 random 1D openings with responder's hand as given consistent with a 1D opening. This took a lot of dealing. All were balanced and 3NT +2 was the likely result for all full deals with 5D= or 6D-1 likely alternatives on all but 1. The alternative on the
other was either 4D= or 5D-1.
Responder's problem in a 5CM Strong NT system is limited to hands with 3-,3-,5+,2- (or minors other way round) shape and between about 11-16 HCP. With less 1NT is reasonable as game is unlikely. With more HCP and particularly 3361 or better shape, slam is a decent prospect so 4NT is reasonable. Maybe in between 2NT and 3NT are right. These could be described as 'No 4 CM, 2 or fewer cards other minor' and 'non-forcing'.
Playing ACOL weak NT I expect it's more likely that a minor suit contract will be right with NT right less often so it'll be worthwhile playing and using splinters in this situation. I think this is more usual for scratch partnerships than agreeing artificial minor suit raises and fairer on opps than what might amount to undisclosed understandings, albeit tacit.
I get that.
So playing ACOL with in inverted minor or splinter available with a club novice, and you have 3361 and about 15-16 points, what do you bid?
1d-2c could go wrong ("sorry partner, I was stuck for a bid") but might help to identify the best final contract. Statistically 3N could well be the right spot, but some of us prefer science to punting (granted 2c is not completely scientific).
...is what I would say to the TD. And if a player said that to me as TD, I'd find it hard to argue against it, but would suggest they alert 1d-2c just in case in the remote chance it is short, even though ironically such an alert (especially at club level) is likely to cause more confusion than it potentially clears. And I would rather spend time teaching the novice splinters and inverted minors than to alert this once in a blue moon "agreement",
If you play criss-cross / IMSRs then this hand should come under one of them. So my advice would be to tinker your system so you DO have a forcing Minor Suit Raise available.
Regarding the actual case. If 2 Clubs by agreement is natural then you don't alert. As we all (hopefully) know - you are entitled to the meanings of the calls, not the actual cards in the hand. Now I suppose you must alert "ostensibly natural but partner may have a 3361 hand and no forcing bid available". (One of the problems of 5CMs is that you often have to rebid in a short minor to create a force: usually it is 3 cards of course).
Playing in the year end Swiss Pairs one opposing pair played a system where a 1H response to a 1 minor opening was alerted and explained as 'could be 3'. There was no time to ask about the reason for this understanding but perhaps it was a way around having a low level forcing response.
Going back to what to bid over a 1 minor opening with 15-17 HCP and 3361 (or 3316) when playing ACOL without splinters. I would be surprised if 4NT RKCB usually ending in 6 minor is wrong. Opener's hand should be worth 14+ and responder's 20 (with 16 HCP) unless there are wasted values. With 4 key cards 6 minor will be a good contract and with 3 it'll usually be worse than 50%. It'll then be likely that 5NT is the best spot so agreements to stop in 5NT after the 'wrong' RKCB response will be needed so it seems it's easier to play splinters.
Off topic
Playing 1C that could be 2 (or fewer), it is necessary to respond on many hand which would pass playing Acol. There are some rare shapes that will have to bid their 'better major' which will be 3 card heart suit.
Playing transfer responses, they might agree that 1D is a transfer to hearts but may rarely be 3 card hearts.
I had thought this discussion had ended, but I see it's continued quite a bit since I last looked. I don't really want to prolong it further, but I would just like to add in response to Martin:
I agree with what you say about a lot of club players not registering these problems with their agreements, even once they've come up. I used to play frequently at the club and in local leagues with an elderly partner who was in no way senile or otherwise forgetful, but just didn't seem to be aware after we'd had disagreements that anything was amiss. The director was called after we had the auction:
1H - 2C
3D
She thought 3D was natural and forcing, I thought it was a splinter. The TD accepted that we didn't have an agreement, but warned us sternly "you do now". I didn't bother to argue, but I knew that if the same sequence came up next week, none of this would have registered with her.
It also doesn't seem right that pairs who have experienced this sequence (1D - 2C) and are aware, however vaguely, that it could be made on a strong hand with short clubs and no other forcing bid, should fail to alert their opponents to the possibility. I felt it was a similar situation to the one I found myself in years ago with an occasional partner who psyched 2S in the following situation:
2H (X) 2S.
The first time, I was as surprised as my opponents so had nothing to say. When the same sequence came up a year later I felt obliged to alert and say: "Ostensibly natural and forcing, but I've known him to psyche in this situation."
My ruling was that the pair had no agreement that 2C could be made on any hand other than one with some values and 3+ clubs, so they didn't need to alert it, and the score should stand. However, they should be aware that they will use this method to bid game-forcing hands with short clubs and no other biddable suit, so they should alert it in future and state that this is an (albeit rare) possibility.
I'm not entirely happy with it, for the reasons Martin mentions, but it's the best I can do. A record of the hand will be taken for the (dusty) County archives, to be disinterred should the situation arise again.
Thank you all for your comments.