[paulg]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

Am I alone in thinking that the 3S bid is completely unethical/absurd, and taking advantage of UI.

Perhaps, but I think South is a weak and/or inexperienced player since she clearly does not understand what 2♠ should mean when she has shown the majors. Otherwise she would understand why her partner is not thinking of passing it.

So I would go easy on the cheating allegations and settle for some education about UI and learning conventions properly before agreeing to play them.

[barryallen]

gnasher, on Jul 18 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

I think this is the right solution, otherwise you will just get a bunch of he said/she said about the table action, or worse the opps will not even realize there was table action because it can be subtle and maybe the partners have played long enough to know something is up, but the opps do not know their exact mannerisms well enough to know this.

It seems like just saying that if you "somehow" figure out that your partner forgot your agreement on this hand and make an "inspired" pass, there was table action, is a better way to do it, and less subjective.

What they actually do is assume that to be able to work out that partner has misbid, you must have previous experience of partner's forgetting. This means that you have an implicit agreement that you haven't properly disclosed, and they penalise you for that.

The legal justification is a bit dubious, but I can understand why they do it.

You just have to accept you are in the middle of a train wreck and continue unabated. You cannot inform the opposition that you think partner has possibly forgotten your system as that invariably alerts partner. You just have to keep on going amid the sparks and carnage until a natural stop presents itself. Anything else is taking advantage of the situation and cheating.

[JLOGIC]

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

Am I alone in thinking that the 3S bid is completely unethical/absurd, and taking advantage of UI.

Perhaps, but I think South is a weak and/or inexperienced player since she clearly does not understand what 2♠ should mean when she has shown the majors. Otherwise she would understand why her partner is not thinking of passing it.

So I would go easy on the cheating allegations and settle for some education about UI and learning conventions properly before agreeing to play them.

Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean.

IMO if south heard north alert 2C as "1 suited hand" and then bid 2H and then 3H, they would pass.

Since south heard north alert 2C as majors, south knows that north is just trying to raise hearts rather than bid her own heart suit.

That is the basis of south correcting to 3S.

I'm sure south is inexperienced (or I at least hope so!), and does not even realize that what they are doing is taking advantage of UI but it does not change what it is.

I am all for educating south on why what they did was wrong. I was just surprised no one (unless I missed it) had brought up south's 3S bid since it was completely egregious.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Jul 18 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

I think this is the right solution, otherwise you will just get a bunch of he said/she said about the table action, or worse the opps will not even realize there was table action because it can be subtle and maybe the partners have played long enough to know something is up, but the opps do not know their exact mannerisms well enough to know this.

It seems like just saying that if you "somehow" figure out that your partner forgot your agreement on this hand and make an "inspired" pass, there was table action, is a better way to do it, and less subjective.

What they actually do is assume that to be able to work out that partner has misbid, you must have previous experience of partner's forgetting. This means that you have an implicit agreement that you haven't properly disclosed, and they penalise you for that.

The legal justification is a bit dubious, but I can understand why they do it.

I agree that the legal justification seems dubious. I think they might just be trying to create a valid legal reason to do imo what is the right thing in this case.

There are so many nuances that can just tell you what partner has done. For instance, if the 2C bid was slightly slow (not huge break in tempo, but maybe 3-4 seconds longer than it normally was), and then the 2S bid was pretty quick (not a huge break in tempo...etc), then it's obvious that 2C followed by 2S was a planned sequence with 6-4 in the majors. Even if the opps call you on a break in tempo, it's not like the director will force you to play partner to have forgotten rather than have bid correctly.

Similarly if the 2C bid was pretty fast, and the 2S bid was slow, it is likely partner has bid correctly, but didn't have the plan when bidding 2C and figured it out on the fly.

On the other hand if the 2C bid is in normal tempo and the 2S bid is in normal tempo or a little quick, not that many average or average minus players are capable of having a good 6-4 and doing it as such. If your partner is capable of it, you will know this. If they're not, you'll know this.

There are just so many ways to know whats going on every single time and the opps can't really pinpoint it, that it is not practical to let people say "My partner has never bid this way and is not capable of such sophisticated bidding." So at least in England even someone who uses that argument will be punished.

[Cascade]

I agree with Justin.

Almost noone would rebid 3♠ with a broken down suit opposite a partner bidding and rebidding hearts.

When you have UI based on partner's alert and explanation that partner does not have that hand then 3♠ is an illegal alternative.

[paulg]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

Am I alone in thinking that the 3S bid is completely unethical/absurd, and taking advantage of UI.

Perhaps, but I think South is a weak and/or inexperienced player since she clearly does not understand what 2♠ should mean when she has shown the majors. Otherwise she would understand why her partner is not thinking of passing it.

So I would go easy on the cheating allegations and settle for some education about UI and learning conventions properly before agreeing to play them.

Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean.

Any moderate player would understand that

(1NT) 2m=majors (Pass) 2♥
(Pass) 2♠

still shows the majors but something more, be that extra length, strength, etc.

But this player chastised her partner for not passing 2♠ when he held 1-4 in the majors. So she clearly does not understand the convention she is playing.

That is what I meant, but we are not really disagreeing. I agree with everything you say about the UI, but feel that South is just a really weak player.

[jdonn]

Good point about the 3♠ rebid, I honestly didn't even think about it.