Join Bridge Winners
Use of UI

This hand occurred in the first round of a six round Sectional Swiss Teams yesterday. Because it had no effect on the outcome of the event, no appeal was pursued. But I thought I would present it for discussion.

West
J
Kxxxx
QJxx
AKx
W
N
E
S
P
1
P
3
P
4
P
?

The 3 bid was alerted as a mini-splinter.  Upon further inquiry, East insisted that the partnership agreement was that 3 showed shortness in spades and invitational values.  I know that this makes no sense, but that is what he said.

At the table, West bid RKCB over 4 and continued on to slam, which was cold.  And bidding slam on the hands was not abnormal.

After the auction concluded, I asked West what his understanding of the partnership agreement of the 3 bid.  West knew that the 3 bid was a normal game-forcing splinter bid.

Given that West had made a game forcing splinter bid,  I thought that his 4NT bid was a blatent use of UI, in that he knew that opener was making a slam try opposite an invitational hand.  West's hand is pretty much as advertised by the 3 bid (per the actual partnership agreement), and if there is a slam here it is incumbent upon partner to make a further move.  In my opinion, opener's 4 bid should be considered to be almost obligatory, merely cooperating with responder in case responder has a very strong hand.  At the table, West stated that he thought that 4 was a slam try, not just a cooperative move.

So, now that I have thoroughly poisoned the discussion by stating my views, do any of you have any thoughts on this?

4NT after splintering is absurd and is a blatent use of UI.
4NT after splintering is aggressive and may have been influenced by the UI.
4NT after splintering is reasonable and is not a consequence of the UI.
Other.

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
130 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top