[Quartic]

---

After the takeout double, South showed the Stop card and bid 2♥. West said "that's not a jump". Is South now able to replace his 2♥ bid with 3♥?

Also if South doesn't change his bid, is he now allowed to raise 3♥ to 4♥?

[RMB1]

Quartic, on 2011-November-25, 17:26, said:

After the takeout double, South showed the Stop card and bid 2♥. West said "that's not a jump".

There is no automatic penalty for using the stop card when it is not required. North is not allowed to use any information from partner's use of the stop card.

Quartic, on 2011-November-25, 17:26, said:

Is South now able to replace his 2♥ bid with 3♥?

If South intended to bid 3♥ and did not notice that they had bid 2♥ until West's comment and then attempted to change 2♥ without pause for thought (calling the TD counts as an attempt to change) then the TD should permit a correction to 3♥.

Quartic, on 2011-November-25, 17:26, said:

Also if South doesn't change his bid, is he now allowed to raise 3♥ to 4♥?

South is allowed to use West's question to realise he bid 2♥. He does not have any unauthorised infromation and may bid as he likes.

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2011-November-25, 17:35, said:

If South intended to bid 3♥ and did not notice that they had bid 2♥

For clarity, what "intended" means is this. What matters is what bidding card you thought you had in your hand at the moment you made your call. If South thought he had put 3H on the table, and did not notice until his attention was drawn, that he had, without realising, it put 2H on the table instead, then that is interpreted as "intended to bid 3H". If on the other hand South was perfectly aware he had the 2H bid in his hand, then we say he intended to bid 2H: any "deeper intention" to make a jump bid in hearts, but miscalculating how many hearts is a jump bid at this point in the auction, does not count as intending to bid 3H.

[helene_t]

Quartic, on 2011-November-25, 17:26, said:

---

Also if South doesn't change his bid, is he now allowed to raise 3♥ to 4♥?

I think so.

One might argue that South could have UI in a subtle way: he knows that due to his own use of the stop card, North is under ethical pressure not to bid 3♥ with a hand with which pass would be an LA for North. So South can reason that North has an obvious 3♥ bid (or even a hand with which 4♥ would be reasonable). South can't use this information so if pass is an LA to South, he can't raise to game.

But this may be too far fetched. As it is, I think 4♥ is quite clear with the South hand. So I would allow it. If South had a a weaker hand I might not be so happy about it. But his use of the stop card suggests that he already evaluated his hand as strong enough to jump over a double of a minor suit opening, and then it wouldn't be consistent not to raise 3♥ to game.

North is an ethical player, he might have bid 4♥ if he wanted to take advantage of the UI from the stop card, but he only made the normal (or, to some players, conservative) 3♥ bid. If South decided to pass 3♥ for ethical reasons, I would say that his ethical attitude is great but that he doesn't have to overdo it.

[bluejak]

Reverse UI as I have heard it called is a delicate subject without complete agreement on its legality. If your partner makes a call when he is constrained by UI from you, are you allowed to use the knowledge of your passing UI and partner's assumed legal call as a result in your decision making process?

The simple answer seems to be Yes, insofar as Laws 16B and 73C say nothing to the contrary. They refer to UI from partner, not from yourself. Law 16C refers to UI from other sources, but not the effects of giving UI yourself.

So it seems legal to use reverse UI, though this conclusion does not sit easily with many people, including myself.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 14:27, said:

Reverse UI as I have heard it called is a delicate subject without complete agreement on its legality. If your partner makes a call when he is constrained by UI from you, are you allowed to use the knowledge of your passing UI and partner's assumed legal call as a result in your decision making process?

The simple answer seems to be Yes, insofar as Laws 16B and 73C say nothing to the contrary. They refer to UI from partner, not from yourself. Law 16C refers to UI from other sources, but not the effects of giving UI yourself.

So it seems legal to use reverse UI, though this conclusion does not sit easily with many people, including myself.

The most common situation I can imagine with partner restrained in some way is when he is forced to pass because of your irregularity. (Laws 27B2, 31A2, 31B and 32).

As far as I know it is fully accepted that the offender in such cases is free to select his calls with the knowledge of partner's restriction, and particularly in Law 31A2{a} is the knowledge that partner's first subsequent pass was forced fully authorised to him if he gets another chance to continue the auction.

So I have a problem seeing situations where "reverse UI" is relevant?

Of course on the specific question of misinformation and/or misbid a player that becomes aware of his own misinformation/misbid solely from partner's explanations to opponents may not thereafter "understand" partners calls correct but must continue to apply his own erratic understanding until he becomes aware of his mistake from legal auction and/or play.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-November-28, 17:23, said:

So I have a problem seeing situations where "reverse UI" is relevant?

There was a thread about this not long ago. "Reverse UI" is relevant when you have caused partner to be in possession of UI, and you know that he is an ethical player. Therefore his bid will not be shaded or in any way subject to reproach.