Out of turn Stop card!
A post was put on the BCL forum which I thought interesting. At a club somewhere in England (46.5% field) South was dealer but North first placed the Stop card on the table. I presume it was the TD that told North to put it away (whether with any mention of UI I don't know), and then South opened 1NT (12-14). We should assume that NS are playing Benji Acol. North then bid 2D as a transfer to hearts and South completed with 2H. North then bid 3H. We were then asked what we would call as South with
S 832
H J76
D KQ76
C AK6
Discussion then focused on whether we would adjust if South bids 4H and it makes exactly or if South passes and 3H makes exactly. :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
Interesting.
It's clear that North has a weak 2 in hearts, the issue is what does that suggest that South should do?
I think it would suggest passing: weak 2s typcially have an LTC of 7 or 8 - combine that with my 8 LTC and I'm not going on.
Without the UI I would still pass (it's not a very nice 13), but how many would go on?
I think North might also have been intending to open 3H, but I agree more likely 2H. How strongly does this suggest passing? "Demonstrably" strongly? :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The definite 6th heart surely improves the North hand. Although HCP are also capped How sound is the presumed weak two? We need to know the partnership style I think.
If it was me, then a NV weak two almost means I don't have an invite opposite 2H. But a sound weak two red vs green would include most of the range of the invites. In that situation the 6th heart suggests bidding on.
I think I should pass with the South hand, because it's 4-3-3-3. But I'd bid four around half the time anyway, just because playing in 3H is annoying.
My initial reaction to this was that the laws do not say how strong the demonstration has to be, then on a whim I looked up "Demonstrably".
It does not mean what I thought it did (well it does, but the level of certainty / "strongness" surprised me).
Per the Cambridge Dictionary: in a way that can be proven, shown, or backed by clear evidence. It indicates that something is undeniably true or evident because the facts are available to confirm it.
"Undeniably true" and "evident" are about as strong as you can get (other dictionaries used "beyond doubt").
Its use with "suggested" now seems a little akin to an oxymoron:
It absolutely definitely "hints at, implies, or indicates something" (Cambridge dictionary again).
Ok we all "know" what it means, but actually what is the test level for "demonstrably suggested"?
1 in 2? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? I suppose we could look at the 1 in 5 test used in Logical Alternative.
So this is a long ramble that made no progress in answering Barrie's question. Interesting topic though.
I can't see North making an invitational bid with anything other than a very sound weak 2.
Well, yes. I even wonder if they were playing some intermediate weak two style. Demonstrably isn't the most useful turn of phrase, it encompasses a wide range of meanings and, probably, you could just remove it from the law without altering the meaning. I guess at a minimum it means the TD has to give some kind of justification for why the UI suggests something. The interesting thing about this case is that the UI suggests both bidding on and passing, for different reasons (6th heart, min HCP). We should ask if the sequence at the table promises 6 hearts, actually. If they've shown that the UI only suggests passing.
1NT-2D-2H-3H shows six.
If I had:
S 2
H AKQ109
D 32
C J10942
I might just transfer to H and then bid 3H... make the 3D the 3C instead and I might just bid 4D as a transfer to 4H. Agreed though, it typically shows 6H and probably for most experienced/better players it will show 6.
However for weaker and less experienced players, I have seen many 3 major invites after a transfer with only a 5-card suit and reasonably balanced, hands - including hands that have 13+ points that should have transferred then rebid 3NT!
There is UI - if partner opens 2H, I would pass with S's hand, possibly raising to 3 should there be an overcall.
So, I think that the UI does suggest passing. However, had the auction been 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3H, I would still pass (even if 3H here is 100% a 6-card suit). Hand is flat, no ruffing values and there are lots of losers and whilst we are in the middle of our range, there are no other redeeming features - no shortages, not long suits to establish, non honour cards are all sub-9).
So, if passing 3H turns out to be the correct decision, I cannot see a correction being an option, as I can see no logical alternative to passing?
I they bid and make 4H, then have they gone against the demonstrably suggested course of action from the UI and got lucky?
Lets say that they do bid and make 4H, but the defence messed up and give them trick(s) declarer was not entitled to? 4H should have been a bottom for them, as it 'should' have been 4H-1, so making is a top and not related to the UI. I suppose that 3H+1 would also have been a top too.