[dburn]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

I will faint if anyone here has ever seen it happen by a weak notrump in their entire lives

Happened only the other day at TGRs. I had

♠xx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣Qxxxxxx

Partner opened a weak no trump, I bid 2♣, he bid 2♥, I bid 3♣ - a sign-off. He (who knew beyond any shadow of doubt that it was a sign-off) bid 3NT with ♠Jxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣AKx and they led a diamond. Should we give them their money back?

[jdonn]

Not any money, probably just an alert that 3♣ is really invitational since partner will bid 3NT if he can see 7 or more tricks and has at least one outside suit stopped. But duly fainted.

So how would you rule here if the player bid 4♦ and later claimed he has never even considered nor heard of the possibility of someone bidding 3NT over a minor suit sign off?

[peachy]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

Peachy is right but her point is not relevant. The UI doesn't disappear, but when there is undeniably strong AI that gives the same information then the UI becomes meaningless.

My point is relevant.
It is a UI case and the laws to be applied in ruling are the UI laws. I would allow 4D, but not because of some idea that "there was no UI" or that "the UI should be ignored" or "that the UI became meaningless".

[dburn]

A thought: if you allow 4♦, in what circumstances would you allow North to pass it?

[dburn]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

Not any money, probably just an alert that 3♣ is really invitational since partner will bid 3NT if he can see 7 or more tricks and has at least one outside suit stopped. But duly fainted.

So how would you rule here if the player bid 4♦ and later claimed he has never even considered nor heard of the possibility of someone bidding 3NT over a minor suit sign off?

3♣ is not "really invitational". I assure you that anyone at TGRs would bid the same way with ♠xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxxxxx (just as I am sure you would playing for money or even for matchpoints facing a weak no trump - important to start bidding before the opponents do, and lucky to have this sequence available because it is the most likely to stop LHO bidding for one round at least).

As to how I would rule in the actual case, I don't know, because I don't know what happened in the actual case. Whatever the actual North-South agreements, South on not hearing his partner's non-alert of 2NT is supposed to bid as though the auction had proceeded 1NT-2NT (may be very weak with diamonds) - 3NT (from a North who knows that South may be very weak with diamonds). Whether South did or did not so proceed, or how South should or should not have proceeded, is unclear.

As I said, I'd have passed, but on reflection maybe I should bid five diamonds. What I cannot do (and what I would stake my life that the actual South did) is bid four diamonds and fold up my cards. After all, systemically 2NT could also be strong with diamonds, so 4♦ might be a slam try without a club control, might it not?

It is a capital mistake to theorize without data, and until the OP gives us some more data I will not theorize further. But I bet that after all was said and done, North had some UI also.

[mrdct]

With or without the alerts, non-alerts and non-systemic 3NT bid, south is looking a one-count with an 8-card suit opposite a weak 1NT. I couldn't possibly imagine any vaguely sensible player taking any action other than pass.

Yes, I have UI here that partner has probably forgotten that 2NT is a transfer and is treating it as invitational, but so what? If he'd alerted 2NT and described it as a transfer to ♦ and then pulled out a non-systemic 3NT bid it would still need to be some sort of super-accept of ♦ in which case we could very easily have 8 ♦ tricks and just need a 9th trick to come out in the wash. In any case what could be bad about playing 3NT undoubled when the opponents have 25-27hcp on a hand where 8-card suits are floating around?

[mjj29]

dburn, on Jul 17 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

so that when a reference to alerts was introduced in the 2007/8 Laws it used the word "unexpected" for a reason;

and by the principle of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis", it follows that information from expected alerts is authorised;

quod erat demonstrandum.

Surely not, law 16A lists the information which a player may use (paraphrasing: it derives from legal calls and plays of the current board (unless affected by UI from another source); it is authorized information from a withdrawn source; it is information that a law specifies as authorized; it is information possessed before the board (unless specified otherrwise); estimates of your score or your opponents' traits.) It then goes on to say:

L16A3 said:

No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous.

The list in 16B is a list of examples and therefore not exhaustive, 16A is canonical, unless another law specifies it as authorized, which 16B does not, it just does not list is as unauthorized.

Going back to the hand in the OP, I agree that pass is an LA and 4D is probably suggested. I also agree that 3N undoubled is probably a good score anyway, so I would have passed. If they are playing MPs the director may end up ruling no damage because both everyone else is playing in a game the other way (-:

[bluejak]

At a London Congress a few years ago, Jason Hackett opened 1NT, his partner bid 2♣ which he announced as Stayman and he responded 6♥.

If you were his partner would you assume Jason Hackett had forgotten the responses to Stayman?

I really do not know why there is this pressure from some posters to avoid applying the Law as it stands. Law 16 gives us an approach in the presence of UI based on what is suggested by the UI and what are the LAs: why on earth not follow it? Why talk about meaningless UI and cancelled UI and other concepts that do not apply?

Has your partner never made an impossible bid? Of course he has. When he did so did it mean 100% of the time that he had forgotten the system? Really? And why do you need this concept? Solely to avoid applying the Law? I do not see the point.

[JLOGIC]

nigel_k, on Jul 17 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

AQx
xxxx
Axxx
Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand, so I don't see why it's a relevant example?

[gordontd]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 17 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

AQx
xxxx
Axxx
Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand,

How so?

[RMB1]

If opener has 4 diamonds opposite J109xxxx we are only missing one card, so partner has two of the top three honours.

[jdonn]

gordontd, on Jul 18 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 17 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

AQx
xxxx
Axxx
Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand,

How so?

How many diamond x's are in the deck?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jul 18 2010, 06:15 AM, said:

I really do not know why there is this pressure from some posters to avoid applying the Law as it stands.  Law 16 gives us an approach in the presence of UI based on what is suggested by the UI and what are the LAs: why on earth not follow it?  Why talk about meaningless UI and cancelled UI and other concepts that do not apply?

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI. It's for much the same reason that this exists. (Also note it says "to a very high degree of probability" not "100%").

[RMB1]

jdonn, on Jul 18 2010, 10:43 PM, said:

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI.

But the UI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 2NT, the AI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 3NT.

It is clearer to think in terms of logical alternatives and actions suggested over alternatives by unauthorised information.

[jdonn]

RMB1, on Jul 18 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 18 2010, 10:43 PM, said:

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI.

But the UI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 2NT, the AI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 3NT.

My quoted statement was in general, not about this case.

[Vampyr]

dburn, on Jul 17 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 17 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

The 3NT bid gives S authorized information that North forgot the system so S can do what he wants.

4♦ will probably wake up North so I think that would be the best choice.

Well, perhaps. But it is not completely clear to me that "the 3NT bid gives South authorized information that North forgot the system".

Suppose, as South should pretend has happened, North alerted 2NT, explained it as "diamonds, may be very weak", and then bid 3NT over it. What would South conclude now?

It is all very well for the original poster to say that "there are only two bids over 2NT in our system - 3♣ if we don't like diamonds and 3♦ if we do". Maybe the original poster would never bid 3NT over 2NT with such as

♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦Axxx ♣AQx

but I am pretty sure that I would - after all, it would be nice to steal a game facing six diamonds to the king and nothing. And if we didn't make a game, maybe the opponents would have come to life and bid their own game (4♥) after our side had passed itself out in three diamonds.

The important point, though, is this: it is almost never open to you to conclude from the auction alone that you have AI that partner has forgotten the system. You are expected to be completely oblivious to his alerts, non-alerts, responses to questions, and the like - you are expected to proceed as if he is bidding in accordance with your side's methods until the overwhelming preponderance of evidence from your own hand and the opponents' bidding tells you that he is not.

On the actual hand, I'd pass 3NT like a rocket. Maybe he'll have three diamonds to the ace, and we'll make it on our combined 13 count. But that is not really the issue. South does not have AI that his partner has forgotten the system, and he cannot proceed as though he does.

Interesting, all this from a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee. Last year, at a national event, we had a hand where the auction by the unopposed opponents began: 1x-1y-1NT-2♣-3♣. 2♣ - unalerted - was checkback, where the "only" systemic rebids were 2♠ and below. The director said the the opponent "knew that his partner had forgotten the system, so was a free agent". The appeals committee agreed, and the L&EC upheld our losing our deposit.

[campboy]

dburn, on Jul 18 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

campboy, on Jul 17 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

Law 16A is quite clear that the information of whether partner alerted or not is extraneous, and no play or call may be based on it, whether or not it is "unexpected".

On the contrary, Law 16A says that:

Law 16 said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] an unexpected alert* or failure to alert

*where "unexpected" is defined in a footnote as "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action".

Um, no. That is law 16B. Law 16A lists the various sources of information that may be used by the player -- which do not include partner's alerts, expected or otherwise -- and then says "no player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)".

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Jul 19 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Interesting, all this from a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee. Last year, at a national event, we had a hand where the auction by the unopposed opponents began: 1x-1y-1NT-2♣-3♣. 2♣ - unalerted - was checkback, where the "only" systemic rebids were 2♠ and below. The director said the the opponent "knew that his partner had forgotten the system, so was a free agent". The appeals committee agreed, and the L&EC upheld our losing our deposit.

Well, yes, but it really was not like the way you have described it here. It was far more complex, and discussed at length here. If you had merely said what you suggest here and nothing else I think you would have kept your deposit.