[BudH]

BridgeWinner poll:

4 votes for 3D
7 votes for 4D
20 votes for 5D

[sanst]

 BudH, on 2023-June-12, 18:57, said:

BridgeWinner poll:

4 votes for 3D
7 votes for 4D
20 votes for 5D

Doesn’t matter. These are almost certainly not all peers of EW, nor do they have the same agreements. Organizing a correct poll - with those who are polled not having previous knowledge of the board - is really difficult.

[Cyberyeti]

 BudH, on 2023-June-12, 18:57, said:

BridgeWinner poll:

4 votes for 3D
7 votes for 4D
20 votes for 5D

Without knowing what 2N showed, the poll is meaningless.

I gave this to one of my sometime partners and he raised another possible issue, for him, 3N shows a good hand with a stop in neither major so is automatically removed on the hand in question (he doesn't bid 2N with a stop in both).

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2023-June-10, 00:30, said:

I don't see those as making this AI.

16A1(a) says AI is allowed "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted". The illegal call, the change to double was not accepted so this section shouldn't apply
16A1(b) says "it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see 16C)". 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. I think if double was the original call, and East was allowed to withdraw double and change to 2NT, then 16C would apply
16C2 says "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized."

I believe the "information" this refers to is the meaning of the action. The fact that partner may be barred, or must ignore some UI that they've received, is not what this is talking about.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2023-June-15, 08:41, said:

I believe the "information" this refers to is the meaning of the action. The fact that partner may be barred, or must ignore some UI that they've received, is not what this is talking about.

I disagree.

Edit: There are separate laws if partner is barred, e.g. you can make any legal bid.

[smerriman]

 johnu, on 2023-June-15, 17:41, said:

I disagree.

I'm not sure why there was a long discussion about which call was the 'withdrawn' one then, since 16A1b about which information is authorized points to 16C, which says *no* information is AI to the offending side regardless.

Are you therefore saying in the other situation I mentioned - where if you make an insufficient bid, and when not replacing it with a simple higher alternative, the director warns you that if you make a different bid your partner will be barred - you're not allowed to know that partner will be barred?

Everything I've read says that not only are you allowed, but you're encouraged to make a 'sign-off' bid that you would never make otherwise.

[Edit] This came before your edit. Where are the other laws?

[BudH]

One issue that comes into play is ATTRIBUTABLE meanings of 2NT:

1. 2NT was bid thinking the opening bid was 2!H, not 1!H. (perhaps good 15 to bad 19 HCP)
2. 2NT was bid thinking he was dealer or that RHO had passed. (perhaps 20-22 HCP)
3. Something else

[mycroft]

Okay, I get to eat my words again.

Sure, only one in 4 bid 4, but surely that is "bid game if you can make it, or take the points if you can't?" I guess if you think that the ♣A is the setting trick in 4M, because partner has the other three...or you think 6 is on, and are trying to talk them out of finding it, more likely.

But I agree with sanst and CyberYeti - I bet BW is no more peers of the players than I am (maybe even less so); and unless you show me the poll, I wouldn't trust it to have a clear agreement of 2NT at these colours for this pair (mostly because it wasn't given here; and also because these sorts of "what would you do" polls tend to omit this kind of information, whether it's "everyone plays it my way" or "it's not important"). If 2NT is mini-maxi, especially the kind of mini that stopped me playing mini-maxi, my response would be very different from if it's "(almost always) 9 HCP in the minors at equal vul", and there are all kinds of preempt agreements in the wash.

[BudH]

 mycroft, on 2023-June-19, 12:41, said:

Okay, I get to eat my words again.

Sure, only one in 4 bid 4, but surely that is "bid game if you can make it, or take the points if you can't?" I guess if you think that the ♣A is the setting trick in 4M, because partner has the other three...or you think 6 is on, and are trying to talk them out of finding it, more likely.

But I agree with sanst and CyberYeti - I bet BW is no more peers of the players than I am (maybe even less so); and unless you show me the poll, I wouldn't trust it to have a clear agreement of 2NT at these colours for this pair (mostly because it wasn't given here; and also because these sorts of "what would you do" polls tend to omit this kind of information, whether it's "everyone plays it my way" or "it's not important"). If 2NT is mini-maxi, especially the kind of mini that stopped me playing mini-maxi, my response would be very different from if it's "(almost always) 9 HCP in the minors at equal vul", and there are all kinds of preempt agreements in the wash.

True, when I put this on BridgeWinners as a poll, I knew those being polled would be on average a higher standard than the West in question. Although since I know the West player, she is at a pretty decent level for an average Flight A club player.

What I think it does show is how clearly 5D is likely a logical alternative even for a moderately high club player skill level. And that 3D even for a club game was probably too much influenced by the UI.

[mycroft]

I agree with your conclusion.

But I am much more concerned about "did the poll give *that pair's* agreement on two-suited Preempt (or preemptive overcalls in general) style, or were the pollees allowed/expected to use their default?" than "class of player". I'm also concerned that even if it was given, how many of the pollees didn't read it.

Because if I'm expecting that 5D will go 500 (or 800! - x xx Kxxxx Qxxxx), I'm bidding 3. If I'm expecting my style of Unusual 2NT (knowing that I'm almost always outbid with the minors, there has to be a reason why I'm saying something and telling declarer how to play the hand), then 5 should be -1 at worst, and if they don't take their tricks in time, or partner has Kx or A/Ax, it might make - and if it doesn't make, 4M will.

So if I'm playing with my regular partners, 5D. If I'm playing with random Calgary player, 3D. If I'm playing with this partner, with their agreements...?

[johnu]

 mycroft, on 2023-June-22, 09:38, said:

Because if I'm expecting that 5D will go 500 (or 800! - x xx Kxxxx Qxxxx), I'm bidding 3.

With x xx Kxxxx Qxxxx, opponents can make 6♥ or 6♠ for +980. If you just bid 3♦, opponents have plenty of room to get to slam.

[mycroft]

And 800 won't be a near-zero anyway? You play in better games than I do.

But 500 into 450, frankly even 500 into 980, is something I should be aiming for?

To be more clear, obviously partner could have a better hand than that. But it could easily be 500 into game only. It could be 300. it could be into 450, so it's a dealer's choice.

And yeah, it's not me, but these opponents have better chances at getting the overtrick than the pairs who didn't get an overcall. Maybe it's right, therefore, to go hunting for magic; but I still don't think I will, and I still don't think 800 will score that much better than 980 in an "average level club game".

Do I think that 3♦ is a LA that could be influenced by the UI? Yes.
Do I think that many "average club game" players would bid only 3♦ without the UI? Yes.
Do I think that it's a poor call? Depends on my agreements about 2NT.
Do we adjust? Well, if West is a good enough player that if I were to (at the bar, not the director of the game) tease her about "5 card support, no major cards, and *only* 3♦?" she'd get it, then yeah, we do. Because she'll be good enough that when (as the director) I say "it really makes sense to bid 5 right away and put them to it, you know 4 is cold" she'd reluctantly agree; and then I can point out how "if you have information from your partner's action that he may have missed North's opener, and actually has 20 flat, you can see how that might influence you into not 'taking the advance sacrifice', yes?" and from there to the ruling, whatever it is. If she's the kind of club player - even good one - that bids 3♦ because "partner told me to pick a minor, and I prefer diamonds to clubs", then maybe not - because 5♦ wouldn't have entered her mind even without the UI.

[johnu]

 mycroft, on 2023-June-22, 16:32, said:

And 800 won't be a near-zero anyway? You play in better games than I do.

Who says the opponents are going to double even if they have you for 500 or 800 when partner has the weakest type of hand? It's not like they have a kibitzer whispering in their ear saying to take the penalty. They've got a massive 2 suited major fit with the only sure defensive trick being ♦A. I've actually played a hand where the opponents bid on to the 5 level or higher on this sort of layout.