[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-28, 07:51, said:

Yes I think this was the implication for us, too. But that doesn't mean it can't happen - as Bluejak often points out in discussions about whether you can be woken up to a misunderstanding by partner's "impossible" bid, people do come up with such bids from time to time, and one still has to try to work out what they might be trying to show.

There are two sorts of 'impossible' bids.

First, those without UI where partner makes a serious effort to guess what his partner is up to, but generally assumes they are natural.

Second, those with UI where partner takes advantage of the UI and then argues vehemently that no other call was possible because the bid was impossible.

Moi, a cynic? Surely not.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2011-September-28, 09:26, said:

There are two sorts of 'impossible' bids.

First, those without UI where partner makes a serious effort to guess what his partner is up to, but generally assumes they are natural.

Second, those with UI where partner takes advantage of the UI and then argues vehemently that no other call was possible because the bid was impossible.

Moi, a cynic? Surely not.

Well since you ask.....

I do recall a couple of years ago (at Brighton) falling a victim to your cynicism.

LHO opened 2♦ showing, if I remember correctly, a weak hand with ♦ plus a 4-card major. Partner doubled (for take-out) and RHO bid 2♥ (pass/correct). I bid what I intended as a natural 2N, which partner alerted (oh dear) and bid 3♣. Now the UI told me exactly what was going on - partner had decided to treat 2N as Lebensohl, as it would have been over an ordinary weak 2 and a take-out double if responder had simply passed. But of course I had to try to decide what 3♣ over a natural 2N would have meant, and (despite your cynicism) I made a determined effort to do so. I'm not sure I found the right analogous position, but in general we play 3♣ as Baron over most natural 2N bids in either contested or uncontested auctions, and this was the best I could come up with. I think my shape was 3343 - certainly I didn't have a 4-card major, but I did have 4♦. However, bidding 3♦ didn't seem to make much sense when LHO had already shown ♦s, so I thought I could try to emphasise that I had good ♦ stops by bidding 3N.

Unfortunately, this ran into the Bluejak doctrine of Unauthorised Panic, since repeating an intended natural denomination at the lowest level is the standard UP response to a system misunderstanding. Instead you ruled that 3♣ could have been natural and passing it was a LA. I remember thinking at the time this was very unfair since if it was natural it was surely a strength-showing bid too strong for an immediate overcall of 3♣ over 2♦, and therefore there was no way I would pass it with decent values - indeed I would almost certainly bid 3N! (In the event, the AC agreed that 3♣ would not be passed, but ruled that 4♣ was a LA to 3N even though it was pairs scoring.)

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-28, 03:06, said:

Everyone has superaccepts in their repertoire, even if they have never discussed them. What else can 1NT-transfer-3new (or same for that matter) suit mean? Certainly the meaning "five of my suit, two of yours" is cloud-cuckoo-land. Maybe they play differently in Australia.

The OP quite clearly stated that "NS are experienced but not brilliant club players, but in a very infrequent partnership". The OP also reported that NS have an agreement to only play superaccepts in the transferor's suit; so absent an agreement to treat 3new as a superaccept, 3♥ must show ♥.

Maybe it's a bit different in Lamfordland, but in club duplicates in Australia (and I suspect in most parts of the world) I would suggest that the majority of pairs have no agreements about superaccepts.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-28, 17:50, said:

Maybe it's a bit different in Lamfordland, but in club duplicates in Australia (and I suspect in most parts of the world) I would suggest that the majority of pairs have no agreements about superaccepts.

I have no agreement with my regular partner about superaccepts either (well, we agree that we do only bid the next suit up), so it is no different in Lamfordland. That does not mean that if the auction goes 1NT-2H*-3anything, I would assume partner had anything other than the suit she bid plus spades. With the absence of agreement the assumption is natural. With the absence of a brain, the assumption is natural and non-forcing. For anyone else it shows a fit for partner.

*transfer

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-27, 21:36, said:

I can see no other reason for South to bid 3H; but, that's probably just me thinking the worst of people. Hate it when I do that.

agua, in a beginner's world, 3H here simply means: "Sorry partner, I forgot our agreement (again)." Why try and ascribe any other meaning to it. From the 1NT bidder's point of view this is obvious, in fact I might suggest all teacher's teach a raise of the transfer suit by Opener in such auctions as having the agreed meaning "I forgot". I do not see any problem with defining a bid as system-forget. I have also seen enough of this auction type, especially in the Acol room on BBO, to be pretty confident that the automatic action from B7I players after a raise of the transfer suit is to repeat their suit even without UI from a non-alert/announce.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-29, 08:16, said:

agua, in a beginner's world, 3H here simply means: "Sorry partner, I forgot our agreement (again)." Why try and ascribe any other meaning to it. From the 1NT bidder's point of view this is obvious, in fact I might suggest all teacher's teach a raise of the transfer suit by Opener in such auctions as having the agreed meaning "I forgot". I do not see any problem with defining a bid as system-forget. I have also seen enough of this auction type, especially in the Acol room on BBO, to be pretty confident that the automatic action from B7I players after a raise of the transfer suit is to repeat their suit even without UI from a non-alert/announce.

If you see nothing wrong with anyone at any level doing that for that reason (which was exactly my point in post #11), o.k. Being confident that partner would automatically bid 3S over 3H is being confident that partner will take advantage of the UI, whether they know what UI means or not.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-29, 08:16, said:

agua, in a beginner's world, 3H here simply means: "Sorry partner, I forgot our agreement (again)." Why try and ascribe any other meaning to it. From the 1NT bidder's point of view this is obvious, in fact I might suggest all teacher's teach a raise of the transfer suit by Opener in such auctions as having the agreed meaning "I forgot". I do not see any problem with defining a bid as system-forget. I have also seen enough of this auction type, especially in the Acol room on BBO, to be pretty confident that the automatic action from B7I players after a raise of the transfer suit is to repeat their suit even without UI from a non-alert/announce.

But if you do that, you have to advise them to describe 2H bid not as a transfer to S, but rather as "H or S". Is it even permitted for them to play such a convention at the kind of events they are likely to play at? In England, mostly it isn't. Have you thought about defences to such a convention?

I don't think this is a good idea.

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-28, 10:04, said:

But of course I had to try to decide what 3♣ over a natural 2N would have meant, and (despite your cynicism) I made a determined effort to do so.

Well done for trying. I'm not surprised that the Directors and the Appeal Committee had different ideas from you, and from each other, about what was the ethical bid in a complex situation. Cynically, we can say that successful bids in such situation are rarely ruled to be the ethical bid.

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-29, 09:13, said:

But if you do that, you have to advise them to describe 2H bid not as a transfer to S, but rather as "H or S". Is it even permitted for them to play such a convention at the kind of events they are likely to play at? In England, mostly it isn't. Have you thought about defences to such a convention?

At EBU level 2 (first level above "Simple Systems") and above, One No Trump Opening Bids (OB 11F1): All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention. So you can play 1NT-(any)-2♥ as Hearts or Spades. Indeed some players who don't have any (other) weak bid with diamonds, play 1NT-(Pass)-2♦ as a transfer to ♥ or to play in 3♦ (some even know to alert and to explain it fully).

[WellSpyder]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-29, 09:16, said:

Cynically, we can say that successful bids in such situation are rarely ruled to be the ethical bid.

A very good point, and one which hopefully will help me to be philosophical next time I find myself in the same situation.

Actually, the ruling I described raised a query in my mind about the mechanics of the ruling, too. The TD ruled that passing 3♣ was a LA and that 3N was suggested over passing by the UI, so adjusted the score to 3♣+1. Fair enough, if you accept the judgments involved.

The AC wasn't quite as precise, but said that even though passing 3♣ wasn't a LA, bidding 3♦ or raising to 4♣ were both LAs to the 3N bid chosen, so there was no reason to change the adjustment given by the TD. The implication, I think, was that 3N was suggested over 3♦ or 4♣ by the UI, but not that neither 3♦ nor 4♣ was suggested over the other.

Am I right in thinking that the technically correct way to rule on those assumptions (NB in England) would comprise the following steps?:
a) rule out the 3N bid
b) allocate approximate percentages to the relative likelihood of the auction continuing with 3♦ or 4♣ and to the likely continuations in each case (almost certainly 3N in the first case and pass in the second)
c) assign a weighted score comprising some probability of 3N (I don't think there was any doubt that the actual number of tricks made at the table would still have been made) and some probability of 4♣ (again, I don't think there was any doubt over the number of tricks assigned in the TD's ruling of 3♣+1)

I suppose I can understand why an AC might not want to bother to change an adjustment from 3♣+1 to 4♣=. But not including a percentage of 3N reached by a different route than the disallowed bid seems wrong in principle.

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-29, 09:39, said:

Am I right in thinking that the technically correct way to rule on those assumptions (NB in England) would comprise the following steps?:

Yes. However it seems obvious that 3♦ is suggested over 4♣ precisely because it could well result in getting to 3NT, so (at least) one of those assumptions is wrong IMO. Whether 4♣ is an LA is less clear.