[mycroft]

Right so West has no UI, assuming I don't squirm. So he can either decide I've misbid, or he's misremembered the agreement, or I have a game-forcing two-suiter like I said.

Which one do I want partner to follow, in general?

Having said that, I wonder if passing 2♥ is illegal. I know it's suggested by the UI - especially if partner *is* going to put me in game if I pull; I don't know if another call is an LA, however. In order to say it is, however, there has to be a call that is legal; usually it's "pass partner's suit". So to say that "pass partner's suit" is requiring an adjustment...

[barmar]

The UI tells you that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only question is which circle of hell you'll end up in after various actions.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2013-October-31, 11:11, said:

I think it is what some would bid, and some would "seriously consider" glaring at partner when they bid.

But does the UI demonstrably suggest glaring?

[Fluffy]

This situation is so comon that I think the rules should address it specifically awarding no UI after a no transfer completion.

I don't think pass is a LA, however I've seen 2 of my partners passing out, one of them even let me play 4-1 fit at the 4 level when slam could be on.

[blackshoe]

What you're proposing is an exemption from Law 16A4 in some cases. Fair enough, but it would require a change in the laws. A regulation won't cut it, since it would conflict with this law, and so be illegal.

If you want to discuss changing the law, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

[PeterAlan]

To complete the story, E chose to bid 3♣, S passed, and W bid 3♦ thus neatly fielding E's misbid at a manageable level (BTW W's 1NT opening could well have had 5♥s in a 5-3-3-2 shape). This was Passed out; the E/W hands were:

---

N/S took their 3 ♠ tricks before they ran away, and with the red Aces as well 3♦ undoubled was -1 for a poor score for N/S, who were generally making 9 tricks in ♥.

Thank you all for the replies above, which have given much food for thought. My own view has been essentially the same as blackshoe's, but I'm not expecting to comment further except on:

Fluffy, on 2013-November-04, 04:31, said:

This situation is so comon that I think the rules should address it specifically awarding no UI after a no transfer completion.

This seems an extraordinary idea to me: it seems to be saying "let's ignore being woken up to one's misbid by partner's UI, provided it's common enough." Whilst that seems in practice to be the norm in club bridge anyway, it's quite another matter to suggest changing the Laws to accommodate it. Where would you ever draw a line? What's special about transfers?

[barmar]

PeterAlan, on 2013-November-04, 19:04, said:

What's special about transfers?

I suppose they could also put Ghestem forgets into this Law change, too.

[Vampyr]

PeterAlan, on 2013-November-04, 19:04, said:

This seems an extraordinary idea to me: it seems to be saying "let's ignore being woken up to one's misbid by partner's UI, provided it's common enough." Whilst that seems in practice to be the norm in club bridge anyway, it's quite another matter to suggest changing the Laws to accommodate it. Where would you ever draw a line? What's special about transfers?

It's not the norm where I play. A lot of things Fluffy has said indicate that his bridge playing environment is very different to what you or I or other forums members are used to.

In any case, even if Fluffy's idea were sensible, it's not as simple as a "transfer completion" anyway. In a situation like this, for example, the agreement may not have been properly discussed, or maybe it has been and each partner has a different understanding of what they agreed. Perhaps this partnership have never come across a 2♣ overcall that didn't promise an anchor suit; but the idea that they should be able to sort it out now by communicating via alerts is ludicrous.

[ggwhiz]

PeterAlan, on 2013-November-04, 19:04, said:

To complete the story, E chose to bid 3♣, S passed, and W bid 3♦ thus neatly fielding E's misbid at a manageable level

I'm sorely tempted to stick west with a 4♥ bid. Yup it's on and away they go!

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-05, 20:03, said:

but the idea that they should be able to sort it out now by communicating via alerts is ludicrous.

The 2♥ bid is enough communication, since 99% bridge players don't know what a supper accept bidding a side suit is.

To put it bluntly, I've played with my father around 10.000 deals, we have never ever played transfer, we never open 1NT with 5 card majors, yet I would never do a suer accept with what could be taken as a transfer completion, because that is prone to missunderstanding. The alternatives to a bid such as 2♥ not being a missunderstanding are so unlkely that I think laws should specifically ignore them, because even when alert will be UI, it is overruled by the AI of the 2♥ bid.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-November-08, 17:40, said:

The alternatives to a bid such as 2♥ not being a missunderstanding are so unlkely that I think laws should specifically ignore them, because even when alert will be UI, it is overruled by the AI of the 2♥ bid.

If the principle is accepted that the laws should "specifically ignore" certain UI situations, the book will have to be twice its size to accommodate all of the situations that certain people believe should be included.

But you are in luck, because when something is unmistakeable from the AI, then the UI ceases to matter. So the question here is, "Was the AI so clear that the UI didn't add significant I?" which is exactly what you want.

[Zelandakh]

Did anyone ask West why they did not correct back to hearts? Were the players at the table asked if East took longer than usual or made any other manerisms after 2♥? What was the systemic meaning for 3♦ in this sequence (with and without a double) for E-W? And what was the ruling at the table?