[helene_t]

Personally I wouldn't consider bidding 4♠ even given correct (?) explanation of the 2♣ bid. But there are several good players here who would have bid 4♠ with the south hand and I believe that 4♠ becomes more atractive if 2♣ is known not to promise the expected 10 HCPs or so.

Of course I know that MI in itself doesn't lead to adjustment

[whereagles]

Even if RHO has a legitimate 2♣ bid, the fact that opps didn't try for game indicates partner's 3♠ bid rates to be a sound one. Also, recall that an inverted raise can be made on less than 11 HCP if the shape is right.

Finally, note that the bidding hints at pard having raised on a flattish hand. That's further evidence he has a decent raise.

[blackshoe]

jogs, on 2014-March-19, 18:07, said:

They defend DD. You play normally. Lose to ♠K, ♥A, heart ruff, ♦K, and ♣A.

If they can find the small heart lead, I can find the correct play in trumps.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-20, 00:59, said:

They, and others, need to stop misleading the opponents with labels and disclose what the bids are showing.

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 09:33, said:

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

I don't question their ethics but their form is highly objectionable.

If I have to extract the information I need, then pass my partner is in a possible UI spot for no other reason. We'll talk ethics if they claim UI after and I've seen it done by a couple of pairs that are known locally as "They who must be drilled".

Granted, none of that happened here but maybe it should have. A bit of interrogation before the 2♠ bid followed by partners (whatever) actions.... I would consider AI for improper disclosure but have no idea if that's kosher.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 09:33, said:

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

I, for one, didn't question their ethics as a result of this action nor do I see anyone else doing so. The OP explanation of the raise was 'inverted forcing one round', iirc.

If, and this is a big if, the raise was consistent with their agreed methods, then their disclosure, for north American players, was at the least somewhat casual, and incomplete and ought to be known by them to be misleading, since in NA, inverted usually starts at 10+ hcp. That isn't the same as accusing them of being unethical. We all have lapses from time to time and I'd hate to be judged on my lapses rather than my normal actions.

By contrast if E simply chose to make a non-systemic call, that happened to work well, then more power to him. I would, if I harboured any concerns, make a mental note, merely because I have encountered pairs who routinely distort their actions, such that their partner knows and plays for it, and those people I despise. I would never assume that any pair did that, but I am no longer so naïve that I won't be alive to the possibility.

If their announcement was merely F1, then in a casual game or online I wouldn't have an issue...I think that I would, especially online where partner can't know I asked, ask about what that meant, and it is an interesting question as to whether they ought to volunteer this unusual approach without being asked...personally, I like to think I would. But I have long since learned that just because I would act in a certain way doesn't give me the right to criticize others who prefer to act differently.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2014-March-20, 17:15, said:

By contrast if E simply chose to make a non-systemic call, that happened to work well, then....

What am I missing? The systemic call which was incorrectly disclosed, or the choice to make a non-systemic call (whichever it was), worked to the advantage of the other side...dissuading us from bidding a non-making game which we might have bid with the correct information.