[gnasher]

This might sound hypothetical, but it's actually from a real ruling. I'm afraid I don't have the hands.

It goes:

  1♠ pass 2♠ dbl
  3♠* 4♦ pass pass

* 3♠ is alerted and explained as not constructive. Assume that this is correct procedure.

Opener intended 3♠ as not constructive, and the partnership has an unambiguous agreement that it's not constructive. Opener now wants to bid 4♠, partly in the hope of making it. Pass is also a logical alternative.

As I understand it:
- The alert and explanation provide UI
- The UI tells opener that responder can still have a hand that would have accepted an invitation.
- Therefore the UI, taken in isolation, suggests bidding over passing.

However, common sense might suggest that opener can do as he pleases, because the UI added nothing to what he already knew. Do the Laws say that too?

I'm mainly interested in what the rules require opener to do here - I realise that it's hard to comment on the actual ruling without seeing opener's hand.

[paulg]

Is there an additional 'not' in one of the sentences? I don't see any UI here - correctly alerted as non-constructive, intended as non-constructive, agreement is non-constructive.

[Pict]

If it really is clearly written that 3S is as explained, I can't understand why you are barred from bidding as you please. Whether your next bid (pass or whatever) is a good or bad bid is not a matter for the governance of the game.

Partner's remembering your system cannot represent UI in any normal world.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Sep 6 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

This might sound hypothetical, but it's actually from a real ruling.

This topic indeed comes up from time to time. It was the theme of the biggest dispute I've ever had at the table. It's also the theme of a case from an ACBL casebook (I'd rather go into that one so I don't tell 2 longer stories), I'm not going to bother locating it but it was something like the following:

1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 4♠
Pass Pass 5♦

Responder was a beginner. 3♦ was alerted and explained as "weak". It was a hand that was very sound for a preemptive raise but the beginner meant as "weak" all along (something like a 1255 9 count) because it had fewer than 10 points. He then bid 5♦ because he thought it might make. There was no evidence at all of a misexplanation or any other agreement exisiting other than the hand itself being so strong.

I can't even remember which was the appealing side, but the committee ruled in favor of the beginner, claiming essentially that they can't simply punish him for what they consider bad bridge. The expert commentators were sharply divided (I recall particularly strong criticism of the decision from Ron Gerard and Jeff Goldsmith).

Ultimately I think there is simply no good solution for a situation like this (except for using computers!) Did responder forget his agreement and then take advantage of the explanation to act unethically, or did he do nothing wrong at all and simply play less than expert bridge? It's impossible to know, so no matter how you rule you will sometimes either punish an innocent player or let a cheater get away with it.

[jdonn]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

[Pict]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Sep 6 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

Is there an additional 'not' in one of the sentences?

No, I have the intended number of "not"s.

cardsharp said:

I don't see any UI here - correctly alerted as non-constructive, intended as non-constructive, agreement is non-constructive.

Pict said:

If it really is clearly written that 3S is as explained, I can't understand why you are barred from bidding as you please

That's what common sense would suggest. Do the rules say that too?

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up. In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

[Pict]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Sep 6 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up. In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

In my example the player followed her agreement, her opponents simply didn't believe her hand fit it. In your example the opponents could just as easily believe opener was worth an invitation and thus that opener is cheating. It's the exact same situation.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

I'm not sure I understand. Is he well known for telling wrong people that they are wrong, and then when they answer a different question than was asked of them clarifying that they are still wrong?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 6 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up.  In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

In my example the player followed her agreement, her opponents simply didn't believe her hand fit it. In your example the opponents could just as easily believe opener was worth an invitation and thus that opener is cheating. It's the exact same situation.

Yes, I meant only that opener doesn't have to be a beginner or to have done something odd for this problem to arise - he can have a 3♠ bid that the whole world would make, and still want to bid 4♠ on the next round.

Also, I don't really see what the opponents have to do with it - a bid is legal or it isn't, regardless of what the opponents think.

[Pict]

Well, let's consider.

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

We do indeed play 12-14.

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

[campboy]

I consider that the laws permit opener to bid as he pleases: while the explanation is UI it does not (and could not, from opener's point of view) suggest any course of action over another because he knew it all along. However, the laws also seem to permit the TD to adjust the score if he considers it plausible that opener had forgotten what 3♠ meant, since then (from the TD's point of view) bidding on, while not definitely suggested, certainly could have been*.

* I don't like the current wording of 16B1a either, so don't blame me...

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Sep 6 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

Also, I don't really see what the opponents have to do with it - a bid is legal or it isn't, regardless of what the opponents think.

Just that the director might agree with them. There is simply no proof whether the player is being honest or dishonest is all that I'm saying.

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

Well, let's consider.

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

We do indeed play 12-14.

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

Hilighted portion = Still wrong!

[gwnn]

This thread is still in Chinese to me and Google Translate doesn't seem to help me.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

There is simply no proof whether the player is being honest or dishonest is all that I'm saying.

This would be why the player might be ruled against. But the "proof" the OP gives is that opener intended 3S exactly as it is marked on their card, and exactly as it was explained. We are supposed to assume OP is giving us the facts with which to respond.

If that is true, then posters say Opener can bid 4S if he jolly well feels like it when it comes back around. JDonn's argument is that the TD or an AC might not believe the facts as OP gave them.

Two separate subjects: what is legal to do, given the facts ---and whether someone might believe the facts are different.

[TylerE]

This thread baffles me. What exactly is the "offending" side supposed to do, refuse to explain when asked about an alert?

[richlp]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I simply don't understand.

Partner alerts my bid and mis-explains it. It is clearly UI to me that we are not on the same page.

Partner alerts my bid. I intend it to mean X, partner explains it as X, and our agreement is X. This is also UI?

If incorrect explanations are UI and correct explanations are UI, then any explanation of an alerted call is UI.

Taken to an illogical extreme, I open 1NT and partner correctly announces our point range. It this UI as well?

Getting back to the original post, if it is UI, then does it constrain opener's actions in any way?

[Zelandakh]

This is silliness. Let me phrase the OP another way...

It goes:

  1♠ pass 2♠ dbl
  3♠* 4♦ pass pass

* 3♠ is alerted and explained as not constructive. Assume that this is correct procedure.

Opener intended 3♠ as not constructive, and the partnership has an unambiguous agreement that it's not constructive. Opener now wants to pass. 4♠ also a logical alternative.

As I understand it:
- The alert and explanation provide UI
- The UI tells opener that responder can still have a hand that would not have accepted an invitation.
- Therefore the UI, taken in isolation, suggests passing over bidding.


Opener has UI that Responder remembered their agreement. This UI does not appear to suggest passing or bidding to be the right action. If anything it might suggest that partner has minimum spade length and/or good defence which would favour passing! I would be extremely upset if I was penalised for passing here however. There is no justification in any ruling against bidding 4S if the facts are exactly as presented here imho.