[VixTD]

---

I held this hand last night in a club pairs competition. Our methods are:

Benjamin Acol, 12-14 NT, responses 2♣ = Stayman, 2♦/♥ = transfers, 2♠ = balanced invitational raise or takeout into a long minor, 2NT = either weak or strong with both minors.

The auction proceeded:

(P) - 1NT - (P) - 1♠
(P) - ?

Are there any ethical constraints on what I can bid now?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2011-December-09, 05:05, said:

Are there any ethical constraints on what I can bid now?

In the absence of any unauthorised information (was attention drawn to the irregularity?, did partner say anything?) or any concealed partnership understanding (does partner have a habit of making insufficient bids??, on particular hands???), there would appear to be no legal constraints.

The ethical thing to do (to avoid gaining any advantage from the irregularity) is probably to rebid 1NT and treat partner's second bid as a response to a 1NT opening bid.

[gordontd]

I think you should bid 2♠. The constraints of L27D do not apply because the call was accepted under L27A, rather than being corrected under L27B1.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-December-09, 05:15, said:

The ethical thing to do (to avoid gaining any advantage from the irregularity) is probably to rebid 1NT and treat partner's second bid as a response to a 1NT opening bid.

I don't see any need to avoid taking advantage when the opponents have accepted an insufficient bid. It certainly doesn't seem to be a legal requirement. The problem is that you might well actively disadvantage yourself, since your partner is unlikely now to expect spade support from you, and there's no certainty that partner will continue bidding as though your second bid was your first. What would 2♠ now mean - a transfer to clubs?

[VixTD]

What I was getting at was that partner had announced the 1NT opener, so I knew she hadn't been trying to open 1♠ or respond 1♠ to a different (mistaken) opening bid. Do I have to avoid using the UI provided by the announcement, or lack of announcement? It seems obvious from a legal standpoint that I do, but I don't think I've seen the question raised before, and I may be missing something.

[phil_20686]

I'm pretty sure that the announcements don't carry UI. When partner makes an insufficient bid, my default assumption is that he intended to make the same suit one level higher. In any event, there are only two possibilites - either partner meant to `open' the bidding, and you should drive a game, or partner made an `invitational raise' and you should drive game. I would try 3S here. Partners bid is defo not UI to himself, so he should reason that I am accepting and I have 4S because he will understand my position.

There is a case that bidding 3N would be bad as it rules out partner having spades. However, even if partner has spades 3N might make, and I dont know about you but I have no way to make a forcing raise opposite an inssuficient bid!

I think if you just bid 3N you have enough good reasons that you are not really influenced by the UI. If you bid 3S you are basically catering to partner not seeing your bid, and I basically don't cater for that ever. Maybe its cause I don't play with old people but I have never had a case where partner didnt see my bid. Have had cases where partner didnt see an opposition bid. But surely mechanical error is much the most likely.

[blackshoe]

I suppose there is some small possibility that responder intended 2♠ (or 2♥) and mispulled, but was unaware that even after LHO's pass he could still change it.

An expected announcement is the same as an expected alert — it provides no UI.

I think you can bid what you like here.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 10:32, said:

An expected announcement is the same as an expected alert — it provides no UI.

I think you can bid what you like here.

Contrary to the above assertion, announcements and the lack thereof are a system of communication between partners, which at the least communicates as to what wavelength the partner is [or is not] on.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 10:32, said:

An expected announcement is the same as an expected alert — it provides no UI.

One could certainly make a case that the announcement has become unexpected by the point we have a decision. If you gave me this auction and asked me to guess whether 1NT had been announced, I'm not sure where my money would be.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-December-09, 11:22, said:

Contrary to the above assertion, announcements and the lack thereof are a system of communication between partners, which at the least communicates as to what wavelength the partner is [or is not] on.

And the laws specify unexpected alerts to be UI. Why would they do that if expected alerts (and announcements) are also UI?

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 12:41, said:

And the laws specify unexpected alerts to be UI. Why would they do that if expected alerts (and announcements) are also UI?

The passage of law that you refer to does not preclude other classifications of of alerts from being UI. L73B1 does so specify, and L73B1 asserts the opinion of the effect of alerts.

[blackshoe]

It prohibits communication between partners by those means. It doesn't say that using those means is ipso facto such communication. If it were, the laws could be much simplified by saying "if your partner does anything other than silently and without any discernable mannerisms make calls and plays at his turn, you will have unauthorized information which will constrain your future actions on the hand in progress".

As far as I can see, Law 73B1 asserts no opinions at all.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2011-December-09, 11:22, said:

Contrary to the above assertion, announcements and the lack thereof are a system of communication between partners, which at the least communicates as to what wavelength the partner is [or is not] on.

Not quite correct. They communicate what wavelength partner was on at the time. But they do not tell you why he went bananas after that.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 14:17, said:

It prohibits communication between partners by those means. It doesn't say that using those means is ipso facto such communication. If it were, the laws could be much simplified by saying "if your partner does anything other than silently and without any discernable mannerisms make calls and plays at his turn, you will have unauthorized information which will constrain your future actions on the hand in progress".

As far as I can see, Law 73B1* asserts no opinions at all.

*= should read 'B2

'
Dear Ed,

Your affection for alerts is apparent as well as vigorous endorsement.

You have asserted that your purpose here is to help others understand the rules; and as such you have immense influence with a great number.

My reason for intervening is that you misspoke upon an important matter and I felt it ought to be corrected. In response you have made numerous dubious assertions where a response was called for.

My first response was intended to give the reader first pause for contemplation and then investigation. Giving the reader credit for intelligence I expected him to find that L16 emphasizing that unexpected alerts are an extraneous communication to partner does not preclude expected alerts from being an extraneous communication to partner nor says that expected alerts, et al are AI, but to read on [L73] to verify that they are UI; to realize that alerts are a system of communication. Perhaps the reader would be astute enough to notice that L20 requires players to listen not only for the dog that barks, but also for the dog that didn’t- and thus buttress the notion that s alerts are a system of communication; and, as partner must thereby receive such communication by law, that it thus is clear that it is a type of communication that L73B1 prohibits. And that someone that reads L73B2 realizes it require**s that someone that uses an alert system without being screened from partner is to be immersed in boiling oil- and that it would be a good idea to be informed of it sooner rather than later. Now, I hoped that some curious soul would stumble upon L80B2f and wonder why the law would have a rule that if obeyed would prevent players from contemplating having an alert system, let alone use it.

** euphuism for an incident of cheating of most heinous proportions

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-December-09, 19:12, said:

*= should read 'B2

Nicely done. Correct your own error while implying that it was mine.

I'll read the rest of your wall of text later. Perhaps, if there's anything worth discussing in it, I'll respond. But I'm not going to play your word games.

[barmar]

A few weeks ago, on r.g.b, I asked a question about the following situation: My partner and I play Mexican 2♦, and there are some responses and followups that are rarely used, so we're likely to forget them. One of them comes up, and I make what I think is the systemic bid to show it, but I'm not sure I've remembered it correctly. My partner alerts, the opponents ask for an explanation, and his explanation matches my intent.

So before the explanation I wasn't really sure if partner and I would be on the same wavelength: I could have misbid, or he could have misunderstood. Now I know we are OK. But if his expected alert and explanation are UI, I'm apparently not allowed to take advantage of that knowledge. If I had been considering hedging my bets, that's presumably an LA and now I apparently must choose it, because the systemic continuation is suggested by UI.

This can't be right. It basically means that any time you're not sure of your system you're screwed if the opponent asks for an explanation. We expect there to be UI problems if you misbid or misexplain, but is it right that you should be constrained if you bid/explain correctly?

[axman]

barmar, on 2011-December-10, 23:16, said:

A few weeks ago, on r.g.b, I asked a question about the following situation: My partner and I play Mexican 2♦, and there are some responses and followups that are rarely used, so we're likely to forget them. One of them comes up, and I make what I think is the systemic bid to show it, but I'm not sure I've remembered it correctly. My partner alerts, the opponents ask for an explanation, and his explanation matches my intent.

So before the explanation I wasn't really sure if partner and I would be on the same wavelength: I could have misbid, or he could have misunderstood. Now I know we are OK. But if his expected alert and explanation are UI, I'm apparently not allowed to take advantage of that knowledge. If I had been considering hedging my bets, that's presumably an LA and now I apparently must choose it, because the systemic continuation is suggested by UI.

This can't be right. It basically means that any time you're not sure of your system you're screwed if the opponent asks for an explanation. We expect there to be UI problems if you misbid or misexplain, but is it right that you should be constrained if you bid/explain correctly?

This can't be right. Yet, that is the way your leaders made it.