[blackshoe]

Sometimes=very rarely, AFAICS.

[lamford]

In order to rule on this, we would have to establish the real meanings (if any) for this pair for (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2H-(P)-3H, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2H/2S, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2H-(P)-3H, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2H-(P)-2NT, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2S-(P)-2NT, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2S-(P)-3H, (1NT)-2C-(P)-3H/3S, (1NT)-2C-(P)-2NT, (1NT)-2C-(P)-3C and (1NT)-2C-(P)-3D. My guess is the answer to most of these would be "no agreement", but until we find out we cannot poll peers with the same methods. [I have made a note to discuss all these with my regular partners]. I think that this pair's actual agreement was just that 2H preferred hearts and 2S preferred spades, and was happy to hear partner pass with a minimum.

It would also be nice to know from the OP what the actual layout and opening lead were. Not for ruling purposes, of course.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-31, 12:14, said:

Convoluted as it may seem, derivative or reverse or second-hand UI is possible and sometimes must be taken into account. We don't have to call it any particular name. It either could have suggested a particular action which had alternatives at the time, or it couldn't have. It is information from other than the stipulated allowable sources.

Come on. It's hard enough figuring out what LAs are "demonstrably" suggested from first-level UI. Expecting anyone to make a reasonable ruling based on second-level UI is ridiculous.

[nige1]

Chris L, on 2015-July-29, 00:51, said:

2C showed the majors. 1NT was 12-14. 2H (which showed values and H support, with a 2D negative available), was slow

Nobody seems to have encountered this unorthodox treatment before. Chris L, do you know if the director or appeal committee asked for corroboratory evidence? Was it established how this intriguing convention worked, in any detail?

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2015-July-30, 17:58, said:

Your previous post was wrong because North does not have UI and the last post is wrong because it continues in the same vein.

North does have UI Paul. They have the information that South will bid more conservatively than usual due to the hesitation. In the adjusted system, an "invite" becomes a game-force without enough values to get it past committee. This works extremely well to mitigate the UI problems if you do not take account of the additional information that North has. Note that it is often the case that we cannot be sure what the UI might indicate but here as a passed hand making a bid showing values it is clear.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-17, 05:15, said:

North does have UI Paul. They have the information that South will bid more conservatively than usual due to the hesitation. In the adjusted system, an "invite" becomes a game-force without enough values to get it past committee. This works extremely well to mitigate the UI problems if you do not take account of the additional information that North has. Note that it is often the case that we cannot be sure what the UI might indicate but here as a passed hand making a bid showing values it is clear.

Whence comes this information? From North's knowledge of South's tendencies? From his knowledge of the requirements of the laws? Both of those source are authorized — see Law 16A1. If it's something else, what is it?