[Jinksy]

Suppose, if you will, the following:

---

EW are playing a Fantunes style system. After the the 4♠ bid is alerted, north asks. E describes it as 'should be EKCB, if partner remembers'.

When asked about his pass of 5♠, east says the follow-ups to EKCB aren't discussed, and that it seemed better odds that P had forgotten the system than that the opps had a 12-card spade fit unmentioned (though in case relevant, NS are playing strong twos).

The director is called, since not everyone is happy with this explanation. There is also disagreement about whether W was visibly peevish when putting down the 5♠ bid. Suppose you were that director. What's your ruling?

[Zelandakh]

I cannot think of a LA to 5♠ so West is off the hook on the UI case. Whether East has UI is something that needs to be investigated so we will need to know more about the peevish claims. Since West is declarer, it would also be good to know whether they corrected the explanation before the OL and if not why.

[Jinksy]

I'd be interested in the ruling for both cases:

a) Suppose everyone agreed that W had seemed peevish when bidding 5♠, but E claimed it had played no part in his decision.
b) Suppose everyone agreed that W had played phlegmatically and in tempo.

When you say W corrected the explanation, how do you mean? The explanation of systemic agreements was correct - his bid was not. That said, he did make it clear before the OL that he had spades.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-April-08, 02:33, said:

The explanation of systemic agreements was correct

Was it? They may have a general agreement about unnecessary jumps but not have discussed the case when that happens to be 4M. Clearly W thought the agreement was natural when making the call and presumably they had some reason for that. If that is relevant information then the opps are entitled to it. If the system is clear and West merely forgot, obviously thta is different.

For the 2 cases, after (a) East has UI suggesting pass and probably has LAs, either 5NT (if playing the transfer method) or 6♣ (if playing repeat denomination as king ask or 5♠ as some 3rd round asking bid). I would want to ask about equivalent auctions in RKCB and, if applicable, Kickback sequences. A poll would make little sense without obtaining this information. I would expect a ruling based on either/both of 6♣ and 6♠, possibly doubled, here depending on the available system agreements. In (b) East has no UI so there is no reason to question the pass. You obviously still need to examine the 5♠ rebid but that was covered already.

[Jinksy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-08, 02:59, said:

Was it? They may have a general agreement about unnecessary jumps but not have discussed the case when that happens to be 4M. Clearly W thought the agreement was natural when making the call and presumably they had some reason for that. If that is relevant information then the opps are entitled to it. If the system is clear and West merely forgot, obviously thta is different.

West agreed that the system was clear and he'd forgotten it.

[billw55]

If the player who forgot the system continues to repeat his suit, surely sooner or later the partner is allowed to realize what is going on. So how many times is needed? Twice, three times, four? I suppose it will vary in each case.

Also out of curiosity, what are some systemic uses of repeating the exclusion suit?

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-April-08, 07:49, said:

If the player who forgot the system continues to repeat his suit, surely sooner or later the partner is allowed to realize what is going on. So how many times is needed? Twice, three times, four? I suppose it will vary in each case.

And it may be different if there's UI along with it.

[wank]

why didn't east pass 4s? it's obvious what's happened. it's even more obvious to pass 5s. east has no UI. west has UI but i can't see any LAs.

[barmar]

Deliberately ignoring your system (as opposed to forgetting or misbidding, as West did) is bad for partnership harmony. Also, if you get a bad result, it should help West remember what the agreement is in the future -- letting him get away with a misbid may help on this hand, but not in the long run.