WellSpyder, on 2012-February-15, 06:33, said:
I'm not 100% sure I've understood your argument here. Are you saying:
a) this hand clearly wants to stop the bidding as low as possible
b) but the BIT suggests partner may not really have the values for his bid
c) so it is even more clear we want the bidding to stop as low as possible
d) so we are ethically bound to make sure we go on bidding?
If so, I think I agree with a) and c). I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by b) - couldn't partner be wondering whether to bid more strongly rather than less strongly? And I certainly wonder about d) - surely if there is no LA besides passing or bidding 3♠ then there is absolutely no reason why you now have to bid something else just because UI also tells you that passing or bidding 3♠ would be best?
I'm certainly saying (a) & (b), ( c) I don't think adds much, but Yes, I agree, and I do end up close to (d).
It's the usual problem with Law 16B(1) not meaning what it actually says. I think that 3♠
and Pass are the only LAs unless N is believed to be strong, when other forward-going bids come into the picture. In the context of a weakish N then I think that both 3♠
and Pass could be held to be demonstrably suggested by the BIT, and there's also Law 73 to take into account. So as I understand the usual interpretation of these poorly-worded Laws, and I may well be under a misapprehension, if you bid either 3♠
or Pass and N is a weak hand then you're vulnerable to being ruled against if it works out well.
On the other hand, N might be a stronger hand and wondering what action to take. For the reasons I've given, I think this less likely than the alternative, which is what I'll therefore cover, but if I'm wrong then I may well be stuffed by partner's BIT. I suppose there's a case for Passing 3♥
on the grounds that it's not the better of the alternatives in either interpretation of N's BIT, but I'd still feel vulnerable if he proves to be weak.
As I say, it may well be that I've misinterpreted current practice. When I went on the EBU TD update course after the 2007 Laws came out, I exasperated poor John Pain by insisting that what we were being told was not wholly consistent with the wording of Law 16, but I'm sadder if no wiser now. Perhaps those with a clearer perspective can put me straight.