[RMB1]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 16:39, said:

Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly).

No one said it is cheating to pass 5♦.
It is just that passing is not an action that the laws require.

Robin

[campboy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 16:39, said:

Well it turns out it's all very simple.

One day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are clearly a 'cheat' if you don't pass.

Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly).

Do me a favour.

It's all very simple. One day partner introduces a minor at the five level in an auction which is perfectly consistent with him having an eight card suit in that minor, so you have to play him for that. Next day he introduces a minor at the five level having already denied a long enough suit to do so, so you know something has gone wrong.

In the Ghestem case, if partner were a passed hand then pulling would be perfectly legitimate, because he can no longer have the hand with eight clubs.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 16:39, said:

Well it turns out it's all very simple.

One day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are clearly a 'cheat' if you don't pass.

Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly).

Do me a favour.

Well it turns out it's all very simple.

One day I finessed and went off, and partner explained you are an idiot if you finesse.

Next day partner finessed and went off, and he explained he took the best percentage line.

Surely it is not bridge to play differently in different situations? Just as rulings in different situations cannot possibly be different, can they?

Do me a favour.

[AlexJonson]

campboy, on 2011-January-21, 06:45, said:

It's all very simple. One day partner introduces a minor at the five level in an auction which is perfectly consistent with him having an eight card suit in that minor, so you have to play him for that. Next day he introduces a minor at the five level having already denied a long enough suit to do so, so you know something has gone wrong.

In the Ghestem case, if partner were a passed hand then pulling would be perfectly legitimate, because he can no longer have the hand with eight clubs.

You will have noticed that I don't often post in these threads, though I do read them from time to time.

But I wanted to better understand the current policy on UI (for personal reasons), so took part in the Ghestem thread, posted a problem I imagined I had faced and commented on the current thread that seemed, accidentally, eerily similar to the Ghestem thread.

The message I took from the Ghestem thread was that ignoring or forgetting that partner failed to alert is simply not possible: you immediately, irrevocably, have UI. You must bend over backwards to avoid using UI: prattling, as I did, about probability doesn't cut it.

But on this thread, it is argued that I can escape on the 'LAs' clause. Partner, the strong hand, driving this auction at least implicitly, tells me he prefers diamonds to my Hearts. But apparently I must forget his failure to alert, I must disregard it, I must bid on.

a)Was he cue bidding? Well, let's just say that xfer break after 4♦ doesn't exist in our system, shall we.

b)He can't have long diamonds? I have played against some hignly distinguished opponents, where a normal 2NT turned out to include a 6-card major not even a minor.

My conclusion from this thread is that with this particularly virulent form of UI, the requirement is to bend over backwards, but not neceaarily very far.

So there has a learning experience for me, disappointingly ambiguous, but sufficienct to guide my conduct - that is, take account of text book cases, particlarly from the Netherlands, and bid as I judge otherwise.

By the way, I note with relief that Lamford's proposition that passing 5♦ on this hand would be use of UI has so far not met disagreement (hmm), but at least has not met agreement.

Meanwhile I can vanish from attention for a while.

[barmar]

dburn, on 2011-January-20, 17:38, said:

The method of resolving this question is not clear. There are some who believe, not without justification, that North must in fact proceed as if South had explained 4♦ as "hearts, not necessarily more than game values" and then bid five diamonds over it. This has never struck me as altogether satisfactory, because it implies that North is in effect permitted to take advantage of the UI that partner has actually remembered the system. Others believe (as I do) that North must proceed as if he had not heard anything at all from the South quarter with regard to 4♦, and is allowed to guess or deduce that South has forgotten the methods. The first school would disallow 5♥, the second school would condone it. Until more official guidance on the question is given than we have at present (although some might exist of which I am unaware), any given ruling may depend on the school to which the Director or the Appeals Committee belongs.

The difference is that when UI confirms that partner remembered the system, it's not as much USEFUL information as when it indicates that he forgot the system. You generally assume partner remembered the system, and when the UI is consistent with this it doesn't generally affect your subsequent actions.

Although I can see how it might impact this case. If you heard partner alert/announce your transfer, and he bid 5♦ anyway, your expectations are completely different.

However, now we get back to the fact that these are C players. To an advanced player, 5♦ is some kind of slam try, presumably showing good ♥ support. But to a novice, with or without the UI, the 5♦ bid totally confuses him. All he knows is he has a weak hand, long ♥, and opener has promised at least 2-card support with his NT bid (C players also don't open NT with singletons). He doesn't know what 5♦ means, but he doesn't care, he's taking them back to the ♥ fit. Passing is not an option.

[blackshoe]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-21, 15:38, said:

My conclusion from this thread is that with this particularly virulent form of UI, the requirement is to bend over backwards, but not neceaarily very far.

What the law actually says is

Quote

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The emphasis is mine. What that clause means is that if you have only one logical action, with no logical alternative, it is not illegal to take that action even if it is suggested by UI. But when you have more than one logical action, so that you have a logical alternative to suggested action, you cannot take the suggested action. I grant you it can sometimes be hard to figure all this out at the table. Just do the best you can, and leave the rest to the director.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-January-21, 06:45, said:

In the Ghestem case, if partner were a passed hand then pulling would be perfectly legitimate, because he can no longer have the hand with eight clubs.

I'm not sure about that. You hold as dealer:

xxx
x
x
xxxxxxxx

Do you not pass?

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2011-January-22, 02:48, said:

I'm not sure about that. You hold as dealer:

xxx
x
x
xxxxxxxx

Do you not pass?

Sure I would pass. But I wouldn't make a voluntary bid of 5♣ later in the auction either.

BTW, I agree with you in general that being a passed hand doesn't bar you from having a long suit where you might want to play. But for the Ghestem case of the other thread, the hand that you present is impossible.

However, imagine the auction starts:

---

2♦: Majors, but alerted as Top and Bottom (spades + clubs)

Now, it would be perfectly possible for North to have

---

(except that the UI says he doesn't).

Rik

[Vampyr]

All this talk about "C" players and how weak they are... Why on earth are they playing Texas transfers?

I think that in the ACBL there is much more of a problem with "ooh, let's play that" because of all the check boxes on the convention card. If conventions are suggested, they must be a good idea. Also, you will look stupid if you don't have a lot of boxes checked.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 18:38, said:

All this talk about "C" players and how weak they are... Why on earth are they playing Texas transfers?

I think that in the ACBL there is much more of a problem with "ooh, let's play that" because of all the check boxes on the convention card. If conventions are suggested, they must be a good idea. Also, you will look stupid if you don't have a lot of boxes checked.

You ask me, Jacoby transfers are more complicated than Texas. And more C players play Jacoby than play Texas.

There is a "Simple Card" (not the SAYC card, the Simple Card is green). The clubs around here don't carry them, probably because they're more expensive than the regular cards. Most players have never seen one. On the web site, it's called the "Fat Free" card, does not appear to be green (it's a pdf) and comes either filled out already, or not, your choice. The "fat free" bit means they deleted a bunch of checkboxes.

I agree, pretty much, with your second paragraph. Although... I'm reminded of one of our local "experts" (I wouldn't really call him expert, but he's very good). The other day, he actually had a card, for once. Of course, it was filled out in thick pencil - reminded me of an old Bill Cosby routine about being in the first grade - and was almost completely illegible, not to mention incomplete.

For my money the ACBL card is the worst design for a card I've seen. They ought to hire a professional forms designer to reinvent it. But of course, they can't do that, because the membership can't handle change.