[mrdct]

pretzalz, on 2011-September-25, 23:34, said:

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift.

The most likely reason for South failing to alert 3♥ must surely be because he or she did not think it was alertable (i.e. strong and natural). The failure to alert has done two things:

- woken-up North as to her misbid; and
- conveyed to North that South is treating 3♥ as natural, in which case 4♥ takes on a completely different meaning to what it would've meant opposite a splinter.

North has UI that South has a different interpretation of the 3♥ bid to what North initially intended and is ethically bound to avoid selecting actions suggested by that UI when other logical alternatives exist. Generally speaking, one will meet one's ethical obligations by bidding one's hand as if no UI had been transmitted (including not being woken-up to your earlier misbid) but even then you may still be subject to an adjusted score if some other logical alternative within the serious consideration of your polled peers was going to be less successful.

There may be situations where partner's bid opposite your non-alerted, but intended artificial, bid is sufficiently weird that it can only mean partner has misinterpreted your bid which would be AI. For example, a 5X response to a 4NT bid which was intended as quantitative would carry the reasonable AI that partner took it as Blackwood and you would be ethically able to proceed on that basis even if 4NT was alerted and described as Blackwood contrary to your original intent. We might be able to throw a lifeline at North here if it can be established that South has no idea about cue bidding and this is a fact known to North, as in that case 4♥ couldn't really be anything other than a natural suit and would legally wake-up North to the misunderstanding.

Perhaps a good question to ask North is, "when you bid 6♠ did any other potential bids cross your mind and why did you rule those out?"

[bluejak]

Siegmund, on 2011-September-25, 20:55, said:

I am quite puzzled to see so many people disallowing 4S.

I showed some kind of spade raise. Partner failed to cuebid 4C. For slam to be solid I need partner to have SAKQ and a singleton or queen of clubs; for slam to even be 50-50 I need most of this. I might go so far as to say that anybody who bids 4NT or 5m is taking a very strange position that it's possible for us not to have a sure club loser here. [Edited to add: I see Cascade added the possibility that partner doesn't know how to cuebid at all. That might be a reason to believe "anything is possible" now. Of course, if 3H cannot elicit any useful information at all from partner, I might as well have just responded 4NT to 1S...]

As for partner's non-alert... well.. fit-jumps and splinters were both conventions under the pre-2007 laws; I can't think of any jurisdiction where one is alertable and the other is not. The only UI I have is that partner is a sloppy alerter.

Perhaps you would like to give some sort of hand consistent with partner's heart cue-bid that means slam is not a reasonable idea.

Remember that, to allow 4♠, if we poll the player's peers with the sequence and no UI, we have to find that either a bid other than 4♠ is not considered by a significant proportion - so over 80% bid 4♠ and consider nothing else or that a bid other than 4♠ is not found by a number of players - so over 95% of players actually bid 4♠.

Once you consider what partner needs for his bid I think you will realise this is nonsense. Most people will not bid 4♠.

What you and others in this thread are doing is using totally muddled thinking. The question is whether 4♠ is legal, not whether it is reasonable. To be legal either

• the UI does not suggest it - and in face of a misunderstanding known by UI "unauthorised panic" is always suggested, trust me! , or
  
• alternative calls are not LAs. But they clearly are.

Let us go back to what you think partner has. Consider his hand, and ignore UI. What hand will cue bid the ♥A after 1♠ 3♥ fit jump? One with no minor ace, remember, and no high cards in diamonds at all. I thing AKQ of spades outstandingly likely, don’t you?

pretzalz, on 2011-September-25, 23:34, said:

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift. Now most of my partner's have never played strong jump shifts and don't even know how to play strong jump shifts so I would be 100% certain that partner didn't think it was a strong jump shift therefor his failure to alert wouldn't suggest any possible interpretation over any other possible interpretation. The problem with an argument like 'what would opener do after hearing his partner explain it as a splinter' is that that would be UI as well.

"most"? Does "most" mean everyone? If you consider my area of England there are only two players who play Gazilli, a 9-12 1NT opening, and various other things: me and my regular partner. But because “most” players do not play something, strong jumps shifts or Gazilli or whatever, does not mean that this player can be automatically assumed not to play it or to assume partner is not playing it.

[jallerton]

Cascade, on 2011-September-24, 15:28, said:

---

New partnership.

Agreed in the car on the way to the tournament that jump shifts show a fit.

Partner did not alert 3♥.

What action do you make?

What other actions do you consider?

Are there any actions for which you would impose a penalty?

I'm surprised that you have received so many strong opinions in reply to this thread. In my opinion, we can't give a sensible answer to these questions until we know what sort of 'fit' hand North thought 3♥ showed. Did North think that 3♥ showed shortage in hearts? What did North consider to be a typical minimum hand to bid 3♥ here?

[Cyberyeti]

Absent UI I bid 4♠. Why doesn't partner have AKQJx, AKQ, xx, xxx, the one thing they can't have is A♣ or surely they'd have bid 4♣ not 4♥. Admittedly slam could well be 50-50, but needn't be that good AKJxx, AKQ, xx, Jxx for example, and you have no guaranteed 5 level safety.

If partner has the A♣, he may well continue with 5♣.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-26, 16:55, said:

Absent UI I bid 4♠. Why doesn't partner have AKQJx, AKQ, xx, xxx, the one thing they can't have is A♣ or surely they'd have bid 4♣ not 4♥. Admittedly slam could well be 50-50, but needn't be that good AKJxx, AKQ, xx, Jxx for example, and you have no guaranteed 5 level safety.

If partner has the A♣, he may well continue with 5♣.

Surely if you're going to play partner for either of these hands, you would prefer to guess 6NT rather than 4♠?

As for the original questions, blackshoe pretty much covered them in the first response. Although I would not "impose a penalty" for either 4♠ or 6♠, I would consider adjusting the score. 4♠ looks suggested by the UI, and there are clear alternatives. 6♠ is worthy of further scrutiny since it would seem to be an attempt to avoid further confusion when asking for key cards.

[bluejak]

I would have thought AKQJx Axx xx QJx was as likely as AKQJx AKQ xx xxx - in fact more likely, since 17 counts are more likely than 19 counts, n'est-ce-pas?

Sure, slam might be on slightly worse than the position of the ♣A but it is also quite possibly rock solid. In which case 4♠ is a very poor bid indeed.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2011-September-25, 21:57, said:

That can't be. There has to be a serious chance that partner has forgotten and thinks you have hearts. Which is in fact what partner had done.

I agree it is almost certain that partner has interpreted 3H as natural and game-forcing; he would surely have alerted otherwise. I would disallow 4S (not an LA). 6D is reasonable, as is 5NT (pick a slam) followed by 6S, asking partner to correct to 6NT with the AKQxx AKx xx xxx type of hand. But, as jallerton says, find out more about what they thought 3H showed - although it seems that the discussion was brief. I guess one polls players with the presumed methods that 3H shows this hand, and that 4H is a cue or picture bid. And I guess that the player lands on his feet.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-September-26, 17:31, said:

I would have thought AKQJx Axx xx QJx was as likely as AKQJx AKQ xx xxx - in fact more likely, since 17 counts are more likely than 19 counts, n'est-ce-pas?

Sure, slam might be on slightly worse than the position of the ♣A but it is also quite possibly rock solid. In which case 4♠ is a very poor bid indeed.

I was suggesting what I did so as not to open the 17 5332 1N can of worms, hence I wanted at least 18.

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

[jmcw]

jallerton, on 2011-September-26, 13:50, said:

I'm surprised that you have received so many strong opinions in reply to this thread. In my opinion, we can't give a sensible answer to these questions until we know what sort of 'fit' hand North thought 3♥ showed. Did North think that 3♥ showed shortage in hearts? What did North consider to be a typical minimum hand to bid 3♥ here?

Why would North think South had splintered when their agreements were that 3♥ showed a fit. By default a fit bid shows the suit bid and a ♠ fit.
North has misbid, he should have bid 3♦.
IMO 4 ♥ is a simple raise to game.

[mrdct]

jmcw, on 2011-September-27, 05:38, said:

Why would North think South had splintered when their agreements were that 3♥ showed a fit. By default a fit bid shows the suit bid and a ♠ fit.
North has misbid, he should have bid 3♦.
IMO 4 ♥ is a simple raise to game.

I think you need to reread the thread. At no point is there any suggestion that North may have or should have thought South had splintered.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 05:21, said:

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

It's impossible in my world: why would someone cue-bid KQJx opposite a singleton? (Remember we're considering it from South's point of view.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2011-September-27, 07:31, said:

It's impossible in my world: why would someone cue-bid KQJx opposite a singleton? (Remember we're considering it from South's point of view.

Sorry you're right, but KQJxx, AKQJ, xx, xx has the same issue.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 05:21, said:

I was suggesting what I did so as not to open the 17 5332 1N can of worms, hence I wanted at least 18.

AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx is not impossible here either where 4 is solid 5 very much isn't.

No-one has suggested that this pair is playing a 15-17 1NT, and even if they are to open a hand clearly too strong and unsuitable for 1NT is not necessarily relevant. Anyway, how about adding the ♥J?

We have a hand where to bid 4♠ with UI where the UI suggests bidding 4♠ nothing else must be an LA. Your suggestion seems to be because you can find one hand where slam is 50% or slightly worse there is no LA to 4♠, despite hands where slam is enormous - and as has been pointed out a solution is to bid 6♦.

As for AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-September-27, 10:58, said:

No-one has suggested that this pair is playing a 15-17 1NT, and even if they are to open a hand clearly too strong and unsuitable for 1NT is not necessarily relevant. Anyway, how about adding the ♥J?

We have a hand where to bid 4♠ with UI where the UI suggests bidding 4♠ nothing else must be an LA. Your suggestion seems to be because you can find one hand where slam is 50% or slightly worse there is no LA to 4♠, despite hands where slam is enormous - and as has been pointed out a solution is to bid 6♦.

As for AKQxx, KQJx, xx, xx I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

On every other thread I'm told to assume 15-17 5 card majors unless somebody says otherwise.

And you clearly didn't read the whole thread, I amended the hand you quoted.

You seem to think the UI suggests 4♠, I don't. We're trying to prove different things. I'm trying to prove that 4♠ is a LA because partner is quite likely to have the A♣ a card he's denied without UI by bidding 4♥, so a slam may well be better than the authorised auction suggests (partner may also have a skeleton of AKQxx, Axxx, xxx, x or similar which he may have denied without the UI depending on cue style, add frosting cards to taste).

You're trying to prove that there are LAs to 4♠. I agree there are.

[pretzalz]

lamford, on 2011-September-26, 18:35, said:

I agree it is almost certain that partner has interpreted 3H as natural and game-forcing; he would surely have alerted otherwise. I would disallow 4S (not an LA). 6D is reasonable, as is 5NT (pick a slam) followed by 6S, asking partner to correct to 6NT with the AKQxx AKx xx xxx type of hand. But, as jallerton says, find out more about what they thought 3H showed - although it seems that the discussion was brief. I guess one polls players with the presumed methods that 3H shows this hand, and that 4H is a cue or picture bid. And I guess that the player lands on his feet.

And yet, from what we've been told about partner's hand, it seems clear that he didn't interpret it as a SJS. The most likely conclusion from the snippets leaked is that opener has something like AQJxx Axxx x Axx and interpreted 3H as a weak jump shift[which at least around here people neglect to alert in excess of 95% of the time]. In this context it is bidding <b>more</b> than 4S that might be prohibited... Which sort of speaks to the absurdity of also suggesting that 4S should be prohibited.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 11:11, said:

On every other thread I'm told to assume 15-17 5 card majors unless somebody says otherwise.

You are certainly not. I cannot remember anyone ever suggesting this and it is not the way in these forums. Many of the problems cited here come from jurisdictions where a weak 1NT is the norm.

What has been said a number of times is that you should assume all relevant details are in the OP. If there is something that you think relevant that is not mentioned in the OP too many people make assumptions: you should ask the person who posted it to tell you.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-September-28, 06:56, said:

You are certainly not. I cannot remember anyone ever suggesting this and it is not the way in these forums. Many of the problems cited here come from jurisdictions where a weak 1NT is the norm.

What has been said a number of times is that you should assume all relevant details are in the OP. If there is something that you think relevant that is not mentioned in the OP too many people make assumptions: you should ask the person who posted it to tell you.

Sorry, I have had exactly this said to me and that I'm being obtuse not knowing this several times so it is a particularly sore point, even where the OP is from the UK. And when I say "these forums" I mean the GBK, IBH and A/E sections of the BBO forums as well as the laws bit.

[blackshoe]

David and I moderate the IBLF (four forums). The other parts of the BBO forums are somebody else's bailiwick, and so far as I know no one has established any criteria for posting "rulings" type question there. In fact, we would rather they didn't, because among other things we don't have moderator powers in those forums and so can't much move such postings here, even if here is the appropriate place.

You might also consider, when you get "advice" on rulings in those other forums, on balance the person giving the advice is less likely to know what he's talking about than if you see the advice here.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-September-28, 15:14
Reason for edit: change one word

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-28, 07:40, said:

Sorry, I have had exactly this said to me and that I'm being obtuse not knowing this several times so it is a particularly sore point, even where the OP is from the UK. And when I say "these forums" I mean the GBK, IBH and A/E sections of the BBO forums as well as the laws bit.

Well, when I say "these forums" I mean the four IBLF forums, not other BBO forums, RGB, BLML, OKB, or the Dutch, French or lesser Antilles Laws forums.

If the OP does not say the system then we do not assume it is strong 1NT and five - nor do we assume it is weak 1NT and four. We assume it is not relevant.

[mycroft]

I'm surprised nobody suggested the old-fashioned 5♠. I realize that 4NT has the advantage of rightsiding 6NT against the missing club ace, but that only works if you can take 11 pointed tricks or if partner has the (wasted) ♥K to go with the ace. I can see people not wanting to allow 5♠ because it wakes up partner to which suit we're looking for trumps in, and saves you from bidding slam off the two black aces; but it just seems reasonable from my end.

The failure to Alert is interesting - because I would have expected an Alert, given the discussion in the car, no matter which way partner took it (not sure if hearts *and spades* is Alertable Way Down South, but I can't see why it wouldn't be). I forgot that 3♥ shows hearts and spades (rather than not-hearts and spades), partner forgot that it showed anything but hearts. I can't see it waking up me to the fact that I've misbid *and* partner's misAlerted.