[StevenG]

sfi, on 2015-April-24, 15:55, said:

So once again I ask: Given the only reason I mentioned any meaning to 3D is to determine whether pass is a logical alternative, how does the meaning you attach to it affect West's actions?

I can't see any reasopn at all to worry about West's action. A non-forcing 3♥ with that hand is hardly suggested by the UI. I'm not sure about East's raise, though.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 11:56, said:

Not 16C3. 16C deals with UI from other sources than partner.

I was going from memory, hence the question mark. I was close: 16B.

Quote

If the AI and the UI convey the same information, but the UI still constrains you, then what is the point of 16A3?

The point is that AI may suggest multiple possibilities, and UI limits them further. As in the post above, where an experience player may consider that 3♦ is some kind of super-accept: that's AI. So the AI suggests that he's either super-accepting or he forgot transfers. The UI from the non-alert makes the forgetting case more likely.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 07:41, said:

"They do not play transfer breaks" is kind of like "they do not play reverses". What is meant is not what is said, but rather "they do not have the usual (or in some cases any) understanding about what that bid means".

I don't think these are similar at all. Saying a pair don't play transfer breaks usually means that their (explicit or implicit) agreement is to always complete the transfer. A pair who "don't play reverses" still make those bids, just with a different meaning.

[Aardv]

You might decide that this pair's implicit agreement is that the only meaning for 3♦ is "I've forgotten we're playing transfers". In that case it's hard to understand why West would bid 3♥ rather than 4♥, and how East would know to raise it, so you could ask about that, but the likely outcome is "result stands".

Or you might decide that it's at least possible that East would bid 3♦ without having forgotten about transfers, perhaps with unexpectedly good diamonds, and poor hearts. In that case, I strongly disagree with comments that West's 3♥ is unobjectionable: there's a pretty good case for continuing to describe his still-promising hand by bidding 4♣. East would now give preference to 4♦, West would try 4♥, and what East would do I cannot say, but it's not obvious to pass.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-April-27, 04:12, said:

I don't think these are similar at all. Saying a pair don't play transfer breaks usually means that their (explicit or implicit) agreement is to always complete the transfer. A pair who "don't play reverses" still make those bids, just with a different meaning.

Except that in this case the opener did not complete the transfer. Maybe it boils down to "what is a transfer break?" I was using the meaning "a bid of something other than the minimum available bid in the suit to which transferred".

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-27, 08:46, said:

Except that in this case the opener did not complete the transfer. Maybe it boils down to "what is a transfer break?" I was using the meaning "a bid of something other than the minimum available bid in the suit to which transferred".

Sometimes there are "impossible" calls in a pair's agreements. If a player makes such a call, pretty much the only possibility is that a mistake has been made.

Giving a name to this call doesn't really clarify anything. By definition, an impossible call has no agreed meaning.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-27, 08:46, said:

Except that in this case the opener did not complete the transfer. Maybe it boils down to "what is a transfer break?" I was using the meaning "a bid of something other than the minimum available bid in the suit to which transferred".

No, I agree with your definition of breaking the transfer. But opener only failed complete the transfer in this instance because he didn't realise it was a transfer. If he had realised, he would have completed it, because that's their agreement.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-April-27, 10:55, said:

Sometimes there are "impossible" calls in a pair's agreements. If a player makes such a call, pretty much the only possibility is that a mistake has been made.

Giving a name to this call doesn't really clarify anything. By definition, an impossible call has no agreed meaning.

campboy, on 2015-April-27, 11:09, said:

No, I agree with your definition of breaking the transfer. But opener only failed complete the transfer in this instance because he didn't realise it was a transfer. If he had realised, he would have completed it, because that's their agreement.

When my partner makes an "impossible" call, I try to work out what his intended meaning is. For example, making a Bergen raise and then bidding game shows a hand that was worth game, but not in terms of HCP and also not suitable for a jump to game. The first time I did that, I "made it up" and never dreamt that partner would think that I had forgotten our agreements and thought that the Bergen raise was a strong jump shift or some such. And this would not have occurred to partner either.

I think that a player who is "not playing transfer breaks" may find himself with such a super-suitable hand that he feels he must make one up.

[blackshoe]

It seems like no one here, including the director, asked West for the meaning of East's 3♦ bid. HIs answer might prove useful.

Looking at West's hand, I'd want to insist on game somewhere, so for me, at least, passing 3♦ is not a LA. It seems to me the LAs are 3♥, 4♥, and 4♣, and that the UI (that partner doesn't know I have hearts suggests either heart bid over 4♣. So I suppose for purposes of score adjustment I have to figure out how the auction might have gone after 4♣ by West instead of 3♥.