[Coelacanth]

ACBL, IMP scoring

---

It should be evident from the hand and auction what happened here. EW were not playing inverted minors, but E had forgotten this and thought that 2♦ was strong and forcing.

In the passout seat, N asked about 2♦ and was told that it was a natural simple raise.

E now committed what I have seen referred to here as unauthorized panic and took a (non-pass) call, and N summoned the TD.

North's original request was based on MI; if he'd known E had a strong hand, he would have passed out 2♦. The TD was unsympathetic to this view, given that N had a correct explanation of EW's agreements at the time he made the 2♠ call. The TD now moved to the UI situation.

Clearly E has UI from partner's explanation of her 2♦ call. What are E's LAs over 2♠? Crucially, is pass a LA? Are any other LAs demonstrably suggested by the UI? Does the AI from partner's pass supersede the UI?

Opinions please.

[helene_t]

If their agreement is not to play IM then the information is correct.

E has UI but I think W's pass already tells him that W doesn't play IM.

Unless W is prone to psyching a 1♦ opening (unlikely) then imo E can do what he wants.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2015-October-12, 09:44, said:

Unless W is prone to psyching a 1♦ opening (unlikely) then imo E can do what he wants.

Yes, but aren't we into a situation where East has a logical alternative? He can believe West psyched, and the UI could have suggested he didn't psych.

If this is an unexplored and/or unacceptable application of the rules about choosing from logical alternatives, o.k. But, IMO it should be applicable.

[helene_t]

Yes, I agree with that. That's why I said "unless". Here it probably doesn't matter because very few people would expect their partner to psyche a first-seat 1♦ opening.

[WesleyC]

Common sense dictates that East should be allowed to recognize their mistake at the point where West passes the 100% forcing 2D bid.

However the way Law 16.A is worded:

"A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of
the current board (including illegal calls and
plays that are accepted) and is unaffected
by unauthorized information from another
source;"

Suggests that the a ruling might go the other way.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-October-12, 09:59, said:

Yes, I agree with that. That's why I said "unless". Here it probably doesn't matter because very few people would expect their partner to psyche a first-seat 1♦ opening.

But a psyche must legally be unexpected.

[steve2005]

I'm not sure what to bid with east's hand but pass is not a possibility. With 14 pts game is a distinct possibility and for sure you will win the part score battle. Your still playing bridge and that is the obvious reality selling out to 2♠ will be poor score.
The only reason for passing would be if partner can psyche a 1st seat opening, my partners aren't that creative.

[Coelacanth]

So the TD ruled that, UI or not, passing was not an LA with this hand vul at IMPs. The question of whether certain LA's might be demonstrably suggested is a more difficult problem.

At the table, the East player simply bid 5♦ over 2♠, which proved to be cold for 13 easy tricks on the lie of the cards. Had she bid 3NT or something which led to a diamond slam, there might have been cause for an adjustment, but 640 was probably the worst score possible for EW, so no damage and no adjustment.

At the table where I was playing, the auction progressed differently, with N overcalling 1♠ over 1♦. My partner sitting East (a relatively inexperienced player playing in a pickup partnership) simply leapt to 3NT which made 12 tricks thanks to some friendly defense. She asked me what she "should" have done and I suggested that 2♠ would be the normal call. But that just postpones her bidding problem.

What call would you make with the East cards after
1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P)
2NT-(P)

or
1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P)
3♥-(P)
?

[Cyberyeti]

The issue here is that pass would be certainly be forcing if 2♦ was FG (was it F1 or FG ?) and may well be if F1, but is it a LA ?

If 2♦ was FG I'd suggest 3♦ showing a 5th one or 3♣ would be normal.

If F1 you have extras and 3♠ would be normal.

[helene_t]

Pass obviously isn't forcing since p passed 2♦ for whatever reason (unless the pass was a misspull).

Suppose you didn't hear the explanation. Why, then, did W pass? Maybe he psyched or mispulled the 1♦ opening. In that case, pass is certainly an LA. Maybe he mispulled the pass. In that case, pass is maybe an LA if you are confident that p takes 2♦ as forcing to 3♦.

But maybe the only plausible interpretation of West's pass is that he forgot about IM. In that case, pass is not an LA.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 07:14, said:

Pass obviously isn't forcing since p passed 2♦ for whatever reason (unless the pass was a misspull).

Suppose you didn't hear the explanation. Why, then, did W pass? Maybe he psyched or mispulled the 1♦ opening. In that case, pass is certainly an LA. Maybe he mispulled the pass. In that case, pass is maybe an LA if you are confident that p takes 2♦ as forcing to 3♦.

But maybe the only plausible interpretation of West's pass is that he forgot about IM. In that case, pass is not an LA.

You have bid a clearly forcing 2♦, partner has passed it which I think you have to assume is a psyche or an error, you will know what is more likely but red/green a psyche seems unlikely.

I didn't consider the 1♦ being the error rather than the pass, if that's the case then pass is probably suggested so you should bid.

[mycroft]

I can't imagine anyone passing this, even if they did think partner psyched. However, 5♦ smells of "how do I get out of this safely". Are there alternatives to 5♦? Sure, 3NT and 3♠ at least (I discount anything that is below game - partner did in fact pass my forcing call).

I am a strong believer in this one of Jeff Goldsmith's Imperious Rules: "If you psych and your side gets a bad result, it's your fault, regardless of how moronic an action partner took later on." I have a game force, partner may have psyched, but unless he psyched both strength and length in a minor first seat unfavourable, we can play in Q-game (3NT or 4♦).

One question though - in the system East thought she was playing, was 2♦ GF, or just Limit+? That might impact the LAs (maybe partner has a 10-count he's now embarrassed opening, and decided 2♦ was better than 3♦ - the fact that I have 14 instead of 10 (or 12) may make a difference).

Seriously, I'm not passing this one even playing my old system with my old partner where we not only marked "Frequent Psychics" on the card, we used a bright colour and circled it twice.

Having said all of that, yep, North, you were given the correct explanation of their agreement and therefore you have no case "I would have passed". If West, rather than East, were wrong, I'd happily give you -190, though.

[barmar]

If West has never been known to psych, it would be quite implausible that he would choose 1st seat unfavorable as his first foray into that tactic. It seems like the only conclusion East can make is that one of them forgot their agreement. Whoever it is, pass is not an LA, so he can do what he wants.

But if West has psyched before, East could certainly conclude that he did so this time, despite the vulnerability. It's true that a psych must be unexpected, but when the player exposes it with subsequent action (e.g. passing a forcing bid), you're allowed to figure it out. And it seems like you would be required to do so in this case, to avoid taking advantage of the UI.