[helene_t]

Yes but if you can ethically come to the conclusion that he forgot - which I think you can - it may be a good idea to wake him up.

In the absurd scenario that he explained 3d as showing support, and then passed, I would bid 4h as well since passing would be using the ui from partners alert.

[jeffford76]

 helene_t, on 2014-December-05, 12:17, said:

In the absurd scenario that he explained 3d as showing support, and then passed, I would bid 4h as well since passing would be using the ui from partners alert.

I don't think this is required - the laws only have "unexpected alerts" as generating UI.

[ArtK78]

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from partner's pass of 3♦:

(1) He forgot that 3♦ was a conventional raise of hearts; or
(2) He psyched his 1♥ opening bid.

The failure to alert does steer one towards explanation (1) as opposed to explanation (2); however, given that explanation (2) is extremely unlikely ab initio, I don't believe that it is unethical for responder to draw a conclusion from the authorized information (the pass of 3♦) that opener forgot the meaning of the 3♦ bid. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt that explanation (2) ever entered responder's mind.

So, I am going to stay with my initial conclusion that responder did nothing wrong in bidding 4♥ when given a second chance to do so later in the auction. The unauthorized information of a lack of alert is entirely consistent with the authorized information of opener's pass of 3♦. Since responder is permitted to use the authorized information, I would not grant any adjustment.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 11:21, said:

This is not the way I learned to deal with Law 16. Where are you getting this?

16A3..."No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." He is "basing" a call or play on AI. Whether he chooses to Pass or to bid 4H, all we can say about the choice is whether we like it or not. I don't, because he already described his hand. But in order to get to L.A.'s we first have to decide that he didn't "base" his decision on authorized information. You don't see how AI can trump UI; I don't see that UI trumps AI unless it provides more information than the AI did and that is what is used.

[dburn]

The AI from the auction is that South (who did not know West would bid again) wanted to play in 3♦ facing a limit raise in hearts. North should act as if this is the case, not as if South would not want to play in 3♦ had he known that he was facing a limit raise in hearts. The fact that South didn't know this is UI and may not be used.

[aguahombre]

 dburn, on 2014-December-05, 12:44, said:

The AI from the auction is that South (who did not know West would bid again) wanted to play in 3♦ facing a limit raise in hearts. North should act as if this is the case, not as if South would not want to play in 3♦ had he known that he was facing a limit raise in hearts. The fact that South didn't know this is UI and may not be used.

That would make sense if there were any hand where South would want to do this. The fact that there isn't one is AI.

[blackshoe]

Agua, either I'm going to have to discard everything I've learned over the years about the UI laws, or I'm going to have to conclude that you're wrong. Occam's Razor…

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 10:16, said:

Since when does AI (as from the fact that partner passed 3♦) trump UI (from the failure to alert)?

It's not a matter of AI trumping UI. But we determine what the LAs are in the context of the AI.

If all we had was the AI that partner had passed 3♦, it would be obvious that partner had misunderstood 3♦. An LA is only an LA if it's logical given that knowledge.

Quote

Does the fact that partner passed mean that responder has no LA to 4♥ when it gets back around to him? How so?

I think there's no LA to 4♥. I have a 9-card fit in a major, a source of tricks, and a singleton. I know (from the AI) that partner doesn't know about this. Why would I choose to defend 3♠ instead of showing my heart fit?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2014-December-05, 17:18, said:

Why would I choose to defend 3♠ instead of showing my heart fit?

What heart fit? Partner wanted to play in 3♦ opposite a limit raise in hearts. He hasn't got hearts. The pass of 3♦ exposes his psyche on a balanced Yarborough

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2014-December-05, 18:04, said:

What heart fit? Partner wanted to play in 3♦ opposite a limit raise in hearts. He hasn't got hearts. The pass of 3♦ exposes his psyche on a balanced Yarborough

In first seat, red. Right.

[blackshoe]

I don't think we always have to shoot ourselves in the foot when we have UI. I do think we have to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. And for the TD, I think he has to poll North's peers and find out what they would do. Perhaps two polls, both given the auction, and one give an alert of 3♦. I'm not at all sure there's no LA to 4♥ here. OTOH, Lamford's argument has weight, but it may lead to "pass is suggested over 4♥" Seems to me this problem is thornier than it looks.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 18:19, said:

I don't think we always have to shoot ourselves in the foot when we have UI. I do think we have to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. And for the TD, I think he has to poll North's peers and find out what they would do. Perhaps two polls, both given the auction, and one give an alert of 3♦. I'm not at all sure there's no LA to 4♥ here. OTOH, Lamford's argument has weight, but it may lead to "pass is suggested over 4♥" Seems to me this problem is thornier than it looks.

To assess the logical alternatives, we don't mention in the poll whether 3♦ was alerted or not. I'd ask people two questions:

1. What do you think is going on? I'd divide the answers into:

(i) Partner clearly thought we were playing 3♦ as natural and non-forcing.
(ii) Partner has clearly psyched his 1♥ opener.
(iii) Partner has clearly made a mechanical error and passed when he meant to bid 3♥ (or 4♥).
(iv) It's not clear: (i) and (ii) are both plausible explanations.
(v) It's not clear: (i) and (iii) are both plausible explanations.
(vi) It's not clear: (ii) and (iii) are both plausible explanations.
(vii) It's not clear: (i), (ii) and (iii) are all plausible explanations.

For me, the answer might depend on how confident I was about the agreement. A long standing partnership which rarely changes it system is not the same situation as a fairly new partnership which has agreed to play a named convention without discussing when it applies. Therefore I'd expect the TD to try to establish why South thought that Bergen applied here and why North did not (he'll need to ask this for MI purposes anyway) and then pass this information on to the people being polled if they ask.

2. What calls would you seriously consider over 3♠?

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-06, 09:49, said:

To assess the logical alternatives, we don't mention in the poll whether 3♦ was alerted or not.

If you're only taking one poll, yes. I suggested a second poll because the failure to alert seems, for some people, to be only a side issue. They're focusing on the pass rather than the lack of alert.

What do you do if one of your pollees asks whether 3♦ was alerted?

[chrism]

There is another possibility for what is going on (though I don't think it is material to the legal question). I perpetrated this one myself a decade or so ago:

1♠ - Pass - 3♣ - Pass

I alerted 3♣ and correctly explained it as a 4-card constructive spade raise. I then thought to myself "I have no interest in game; we are as high as we need to be" ... PASS

Partner played 3♣ very nicely (and graciously) for down 3

So it is possible that opener has remembered the agreement but misfired a couple of synapses before rebidding. This is not quite jallerton's possibility (iii) since it isn't a mechanical error.

[blackshoe]

Yeah. I think it falls under "at the instant you passed, that's what you intended - however wrongly - to do."

[dburn]

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

[PhilKing]

I might be being thick here, but isn't West entitled to know what i going on?

If that is the case, he could pass out 3♦ for plus a few hundred or bid 4♠ at his second or third turn.

[blackshoe]

Some time ago, the table was having a general discussion on the subject of psyching. Well, three of us were. My partner's sole contribution came when she said to me "if you ever psych, this partnership is over!"

[blackshoe]

 PhilKing, on 2014-December-06, 18:40, said:

I might be being thick here, but isn't West entitled to know what i going on?

If that is the case, he could pass out 3♦ for plus a few hundred or bid 4♠ at his second or third turn.

Well, yes and no. He's entitled to know the opponents' methods, and he's entitled to an alert of 3♦, but when he doesn't read their card (so doesn't know they're playing Bergen Raises) and doesn't hear an alert, he would assume, presumably, that 3♦ is natural, and probably that it's weak. So he has MI, but he's not entitled to a correction of it until 1) East South realizes he failed to alert and calls the director immediately or 2) West North calls the director at the end of play. Whichever comes first.

It's possible that it's West North who's wrong about their agreements, or that both are. In the former case there's no MI. In the latter case, there may or may not be MI. Probably not.

Hm. If West North is wrong, and East South is right, and their agreement here is that 3♦ is natural and weak, does East's South's unexpected failure to alert still convey UI to West?1

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-December-07, 00:45
Reason for edit: Read the auction too quickly. Thanks dburn!

[aguahombre]

 dburn, on 2014-December-06, 17:43, said:

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

no.