[Trinidad]

Scoring: MP

---

The auction, with silent opponents:
1♠-3♥ 1)
4♠-5♥ 2)
6♠-7♥

Lead: ♣x, result: 7♥=
1. The agreement about 3♥ was that it was a GF spade raise, with shortness in an unknown suit. Asked and explained. 3♥ was intended as a strong (natural) jump shift.
2. Alerted and explained as a heart void.

We can assume that the explanations are all correct and that this was a situation where South misbid. The remaining question: Did South use UI? If you were called, how would you rule? (Unfortunately, I don't know the EW hands, so I know that you won't be able to decide on what an AS should be.)

Rik

[jdonn]

I know where this hand came from lol.

[HeavyDluxe]

I was *just* reading this... Ahhh, the in-grown nature of BBOF.

[Trinidad]

SPOILERS!!!



Rik

[HeavyDluxe]

FWIW, if you had held off 24hrs, I would've totally forgotten. ;-)

[jdonn]

Anyway I believe south used UI. Even if he believes north has the diamond ace (he did jump twice after all) I think it's clearly an LA to bid 7♠, where north should have a completely solid suit. So that's where I would put them, down however many.

To clarify, I would want to rule it's an LA to pass 6♠. But if south, in defending his 7♥ bid, argues his partner must have the diamond ace for whatever reason, I would say "Fine have it your way, 7♠ it is."

[bluejak]

Has he used UI? No idea, and fortunately for me I have no reason to find out since the Law does not require it. All I need is to decide LAs and what is indicated by the UI.

So I poll a few people, telling them that 3♥ was strong and natural. If, as I expect, some of them pass 6♠ then I adjust to 6♠. That should not make even with an unfortunate lead.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 19 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

So I poll a few people, telling them that 3♥ was strong and natural. If, as I expect, some of them pass 6♠ then I adjust to 6♠. That should not make even with an unfortunate lead.

Perhaps unless that lead is a trump, which would truly be unfortunate.

[Jlall]

Lol 7H is so blatant. If you had really jumpshifted in hearts and then rebid hearts and your partner had jumped not ONCE but TWICE including once to slam, you would never think to correct. Sounds like partner has really solid spades! 7H is not even an LA, it is pass or 7S.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 19 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

So I poll a few people, telling them that 3♥ was strong and natural.  If, as I expect, some of them pass 6♠ then I adjust to 6♠.  That should not make even with an unfortunate lead.

Perhaps unless that lead is a trump, which would truly be unfortunate.

True. But this is the ACBL, so we only need to find the best result for the non-offenders that was at all likely.

[Trinidad]

I thought it was kind of funny that this hand happened to drop by in the I think this was funny thread when the discussion about the Blue Team, cheating accusations by Mr. Wolff, and use of UI by top players was at it's high point. I found it particularly amusing that one of the players involved once was a team mate of... Mr. Wolff.

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on Oct 25 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

I thought it was kind of funny that this hand happened to drop by in the I think this was funny thread when the discussion about the Blue Team, cheating accusations by Mr. Wolff, and use of UI by top players was at it's high point. I found it particularly amusing that one of the players involved once was a team mate of... Mr. Wolff.

Rik

Doesn't it say something about the general standard of ethics when a name player uses an example of his own blatant use of UI as humour.

[aguahombre]

It also says something about trinidad's research and correlation skills.

[duschek]

Cascade, on Oct 24 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

Doesn't it say something about the general standard of ethics when a name player uses an example of his own blatant use of UI as humour.

I think it says that there is a world of difference between ethics 1975 and ethics 2009. As for bridge in Denmark, I know there is. Various forms of coffee-housing and UI-based life-saving techniques were considered unfortunate ways of the world in the 70s and 80s. Such ploys were wrong, but no-one knew what to do about it, so players got away with it. No longer so.

[Cascade]

duschek, on Oct 25 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 24 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

Doesn't it say something about the general standard of ethics when a name player uses an example of his own blatant use of UI as humour.

I think it says that there is a world of difference between ethics 1975 and ethics 2009. As for bridge in Denmark, I know there is. Various forms of coffee-housing and UI-based life-saving techniques were considered unfortunate ways of the world in the 70s and 80s. Such ploys were wrong, but no-one knew what to do about it, so players got away with it. No longer so.

There were definitely laws regarding the use of UI in both the 1963 and 1975 lawbooks.

Blatant use of such UI was and still is illegal.

The publication of this example as humour suggests that even in 2009 the author does not understanding the ethics of the game.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on Oct 24 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

It also says something about trinidad's research and correlation skills.

I hope not.

There wasn't much research involved. It's common knowledge that Mike Lawrence and Eddie Kantar were on the Dallas Aces (The biggest rivals of The Blue Team) together with Bobby Wolff. The rest (this deal and the cheating discussion) was just handed to me on the platter that is called BBF. And, keep in mind, that I am not sure that the story is actually true.

I was just wondering what Mr. Wolff would say if you presented him this deal and told him that two Italians bid like this.

Rik