[mtvesuvius]

This is ACBL lala-land:
Suppose the following auction occurred, playing 2/1:

1♥-1♠
3♥-4♠
3N* - Pass

*Partner is a student, and corrects 3N to pass before the director arrives. She also makes the comment "I want to play HERE!" before correcting to a pass.
The director arrives, and then gives the opponents the option of accepting either call. They choose 3N.
Can you construct a hand where passing 3N is clearly right despite the huge UI, and bidding 4♠ is not a LA? Clearly if 4♠ here is an LA, it must be chosen I think.

[nigel_k]

There isn't a lot of theory on what hand type opener should have for this auction, but surely there are plenty of hand where 4♠ is reasonable over 3♥ but is not a logical alternative after you bid 4♠ and partner pulls to 3NT. For example, I would definitely allow a pass with something like Q10xxxxx x xx Axx.

[iviehoff]

Is it fair game to set up a legal heffalump trap? I suspect it probably is. At first glance I wouldn't be very impressed with players who accepted the 3N bid, and then when they had defended 3N called me back and claimed damage as a result of the pass, when they could just have rejected the 3N bid. I suppose you can just about defend them on the grounds that, being allowed an extra round of bidding to decide whether to double something, they should not be criticised for having that extra round of bidding.

[bluejak]

I never understand too much this business of lack of sympathy for non-offenders. Once they have accepted 3NT the UI Laws apply to responder fully, and sympathy should not affect whether you apply them.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-March-14, 08:09, said:

I never understand too much this business of lack of sympathy for non-offenders. Once they have accepted 3NT the UI Laws apply to responder fully, and sympathy should not affect whether you apply them.

Your lack of understanding I hope only extends to the cases where the "non-offenders" really are "non-offenders". Sometimes "non-offenders" participate in the goings-on following an initial offence in a way that it is no longer clear that they are "non-offenders". You wouldn't have had much sympathy for the "non-offenders" if they had sought to make a ruling on the insufficient bid without calling the director, for example, and then called the director when the home-made ruling got mixed up with another problem.

In the present case I was asking the question about the innocence of a certain course of conduct by those who were the "non-offenders" in relation to the insufficient bid and potential misuse of UI. I said it looked odiferous "at first glance". But on further examination, I concluded that it could well be entirely innocent. I should have gone the final step and made clear that I thought there should have been full rectification for any offences committed by the other side, and no stinting on compensation to them.

[Humper]

This hand generated quite the heated discussion when it came up

It's still not clear to me that there's "huge UI" on this hand. IIRC the people who were arguing that there was enormous UI and that this was obvious eventually backed down to something like "well there's some UI because partner's preference for 3NT is clear and strong rather than just unsure".

Once the 3NT bid is accepted, it is authorized to responder, so the fact that she prefers 3NT over 4♠ is clearly authorized. I'm not convinced that I'm required to get inside partner's head and decide that she thought I bid 3♠ and picked 3NT, or whether she forgot that you had to bid at a higher level than the previous bids, or whether she just had a mental slip and pulled a card from the box. The auction itself is legal, and partner's bid, in the context of the legal auction, tells me that she prefers 3NT to 4♠.

One could also argue that because the auction is completely legal once 3NT is accepted, trying to use any comment to determine what partner's state of mind was when she bid 3NT would be taking advantage of any UI. The only information you have should be the bids in front of you (and anything else explicitly made authorized to you by the laws, like opponents' bids out of turn and so forth), and the bids in front of you tell you that partner prefers 3NT to 4♠.

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that you're supposed to guess that partner THOUGHT you bid 3♠ and bid 3NT over *that*, and bid accordingly, because it really seems to me like *that* inference could easily be suggested by the UI (if indeed there is any). Having told partner "I hear that you have a jump-rebid of three hearts, and I am placing the contract at 4♠", and then seeing partner *legally* re-place the contract at 3NT, it really does seem that you've completely described your hand, and passing 3NT should be the very frequent action here.

I was definitely in the minority when this hand came up, but I still haven't heard any convincing argument that responder should feel constrained to bid 4♠ again (which is what happened at the table, and the bidder said that the UI made him feel obligated to bid 4♠).

BTW, responder held Axxxxxxx of spades (8 of them), and a stiff heart.

[bluejak]

I don't understand the concept of "huge", or even "not huge" UI. Was there UI? Yes, not the bidding, which is legal sure enough, but the comment "I want to play HERE!". So whether to allow or disallow anything is based on Law 16 and the UI. What difference does the size [?!?] of the UI make?

[Humper]

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 07:41, said:

I don't understand the concept of "huge", or even "not huge" UI. Was there UI? Yes, not the bidding, which is legal sure enough, but the comment "I want to play HERE!". So whether to allow or disallow anything is based on Law 16 and the UI. What difference does the size [?!?] of the UI make?

The difference is that any UI from the comment is, in my opinion, redundant with the AI from the auction.

If I open 1♥ and say out loud "hey partner, I am representing a hand with 5 or more hearts right here with this here bid PLEASE PAY ATTENTION I REALLY HAVE A ONE HEART OPENER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", clearly that comment is unauthorized and silly, but how could anyone possibly accuse partner of taking advantage, as it is completely redundant with the bid sitting on the table.

What I'm getting at is the fact that partner OVERRULED your placing the contract in 4♠ by pulling, legally, to 3NT. Am I actually required to get inside her head, decide that she was probably trying to bid over 3♠ instead, and act accordingly? Or am I required to make my decisions based on the auction in front of me?

If I'm just looking at the bids in front of me, it's REALLY hard to think of a hand that wants to bid 4♠ again, having completely described my hand over the 3♥ response.

[bluejak]

It is not redundant. Many times a session, you have a choice of actions with a particular hand: many times a session, you have no choice. Telling partner you have no choice whatever is UI, and not redundant. For example, suppose you are playing fairly standard American, and you hold a 5=3=3=2 16 count. Perhaps you will open 1♠, perhaps 1NT. So if you open 1♠ and make it clear it is an obvious call, partner immediately knows you do not have a 5332 16 count - and that is UI.

[Humper]

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 17:14, said:

It is not redundant. Many times a session, you have a choice of actions with a particular hand: many times a session, you have no choice. Telling partner you have no choice whatever is UI, and not redundant. For example, suppose you are playing fairly standard American, and you hold a 5=3=3=2 16 count. Perhaps you will open 1♠, perhaps 1NT. So if you open 1♠ and make it clear it is an obvious call, partner immediately knows you do not have a 5332 16 count - and that is UI.

True, the comment does convey the information that partner has a *clear* preference for 3NT over 4♠. I guess the real question, for me, is can partner's 3NT bid POSSIBLY be construed as "choice of games"? You already bid a game, and partner bid a different one.

Here's a different scenario that I think is related. You hold a balanced 16 count, and partner opens 1NT. You decide to make a quantitative raise to 4NT, and partner bids 3NT. The opponents object, and partner now changes her call to pass, saying "oh, dang, I really wanted to play THREE notrump". Now obviously you know that your partner doesn't have a borderline accept, they must have a dead minimum.

Now suppose that for whatever reason, the opponents, as is their right, accept the 3NT call. Are you ethically obligated to re-invite? Haven't you already completely described your hand?

It seemed to me at the time that the 4♠ bidder had described his hand when he leapt to 4♠ over 3♥. He told his partner "I think 4♠ would be the best contract looking at my hand, even though you could have no spades at all on the auction." It's just hard for me to see what connection the UI would have with your subsequent decision, since you have a shown a hand that wants to play in 4♠ opposite the 3♥ rebid, and partner placed the contract.

Obviously if you have some sort of hand where no contract but four spades could possibly make sense (nine spades to the ace and out), bidding 4♠ over 3NT is clearly right. However, with reasonable values (10 points, I think), eight spades to the ace empty, and a stiff heart, passing 3NT seems perfectly reasonable to me as my hand is totally described and partner made a choice. In order for the 4♠ bidder to be ethically (legally?) constrained to rebid 4♠, you would have to show that the UI demonstrably suggested passing 3NT over bidding 4♠, and given the auction and the 4♠ bidder's hand I just don't see the argument.

[awm]

I don't think this is really all that complicated. You have:

(1) There is definitely UI, partner said something aloud about what contract is preferred.
(2) The UI definitely suggests passing 3NT, since partner said "I want to play HERE."

The only remaining question is whether bidding 4♠ is a logical alternative in this auction. Certainly the auction (1♥-1♠-3♥-4♠-3NT) is pretty weird and it might be a bit difficult to determine the LAs. However, since responder was willing to bid 4♠ before partner's 3NT call, it seems fairly likely that bidding 4♠ "again" is at least a possibility. It does depend on the hand -- if responder's spade suit is ratty and his values are sound there is certainly an argument that passing 3NT here is sufficiently obvious as to make 4♠ not a LA. Perhaps ♠JT9xxxxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣Kx is a good example where bidding 4♠ was kind of a guess in the first place and I can't really imagine removing partner's 3NT.

[nige1]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-13, 11:23, said:

This is ACBL lala-land: Suppose the following auction occurred, playing 2/1:
1♥-1♠
3♥-4♠
3N* - Pass
*Partner is a student, and corrects 3N to pass before the director arrives. She also makes the comment "I want to play HERE!" before correcting to a pass. The director arrives, and then gives the opponents the option of accepting either call. They choose 3N. Can you construct a hand where passing 3N is clearly right despite the huge UI, and bidding 4♠ is not a LA? Clearly if 4♠ here is an LA, it must be chosen I think.

The student corrected her deliberate insufficient 3N (obviously meant as a harmless joke) to pass (of 4♠) . So opponents had fielder's choice to play in 3N or 4♠. They chose the former, fully aware of the "I want to play here" unauthorised information.
The ♠ bidder is between a rock and a hard-place:

• The student's deliberate insufficient bid and jocular remark are blatant and illegal UI. Both demonstrably suggest passing 3N.
• Nevetheless, opponents (who are not students) are desperate to defend 3N. That is also UI but demonstrably suggests 4♠.

An opportunity for the first ever sane application of a "double-shot" rule?

[blackshoe]

I am curious, Nigel, as to how you would rule in this case, and what laws you would apply.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-03, 19:12, said:

I am curious, Nigel, as to how you would rule in this case, and what laws you would apply.

I'm neither a director nor a lawyer but I fear that blackshoe and I have a communication problems.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so. For one thing, I'm not sure where you get "deliberate insufficient bid".

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2011-April-03, 18:47, said:

The student corrected her deliberate insufficient 3N (obviously meant as a harmless joke)

I don't see this anywhere in the original post.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2011-April-04, 01:06, said:

I don't see this anywhere in the original post.

• In the original post, the student's 3N bid is insufficient. Whether it was deliberate is irrelevant to the argument, on which I'd appreciate, your opinion,, Gordontd.
• Given her remark, the student seems to have intended 3N as a silly joke. But I can't be sure sure because I'm not a director and I haven't attended the mind-reading course. Luckily, it does'nt affect the argument.

[blackshoe]

The remark may have been intended as a joke. That doesn't mean the IB was deliberate. If it was deliberate, then the lady needs at the very least to have Law 72B1 read to her, and to get an explanation of the significance of the word "must" in that law. So, Nigel, as you can see, the question whether the IB was deliberate is not irrelevant to the ruling. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the OP to conclude that it was deliberate, though.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-04, 06:06, said:

The remark may have been intended as a joke. That doesn't mean the IB was deliberate. If it was deliberate, then the lady needs at the very least to have Law 72B1 read to her, and to get an explanation of the significance of the word "must" in that law. So, Nigel, as you can see, the question whether the IB was deliberate is not irrelevant to the ruling. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the OP to conclude that it was deliberate, though.

I think it is obvious that the IB was deliberate but I could be wrong, the OP does not pronounce on the issue, and I'm no mind-reader. In any case, it is:

• Relevant to Blackshoe's ruling.
• Irrelevant to my argument about conflicting UI.

[Humper]

nige1, on 2011-April-04, 07:09, said:

I think it is obvious that the IB was deliberate but I could be wrong, the OP does not pronounce on the issue, and I'm no mind-reader. In any case, it is:

• Relevant to Blackshoe's ruling.
• Irrelevant to my argument about conflicting UI.

The insufficient bid was definitely not deliberate. Most likely the student thought she was bidding over 3♠, which would normally be forcing in this sequence but I don't think her parter was sure that she would know that.

The comment was not a joke. She really did want to play 3NT.

What do you think the comment suggests about her hand, by the way?