AlexJonson

I think you need to loosen up a bit. I doubt that this thread so far is about a legal judgement that AI is AI. But I do slightly insist that this thread casts doubt on the notion that players really consider 'plausibility' in these UI from lack of alert auctions. EG, I've got a singleton/doubleton so I'm allowed to override UI and discount a splinter. Yes, but it seems that in the real world players don't do it.

That's the possible versus plausible line of argument again. This thread shows some of the difficulties with that distinction, when plausibility seems so debatable - from the evidence of the competition and its players of reasonable quality. At a simple level, PP for NS looks correct.

Lot of comments and few votes, as I look at it.

I wondered about ducking, winning the heart Ace and playing a diamond towards the nine.

The tabbing is a bit poor. Calculation at the table looks demanding.

I'd play the Ace whatever he won with on the first round.

If 2/1 promises a rebid, what should the 'Acol' player call their system.

Why can't I bid 4D with my very good diamonds and good heart support.

Don't jump to conclusions! I am in the Nige1 camp - no takeback. But I have no enthusiasm for mind reading nonsense about intent, when the logic of the cards is plain. Such an approach just leads to random decisions as mrdct indicates. Anyway - Blackshoe has spoken and I await the next case.

Well the Laws don't say that bids just stand, do they? So we have 'unintended'. Do you believe that the player intended to sign off in 4D? Campboy gives us the Cambridge linguistic philosopher answer. 'At the time he pulled the pass card he intended to pull the pass card.' Impressive logic eh.

Now that's good, because I don't understand it. Let's think about the original problem. A. Nige1 thinks the Laws should say 'no takeback'. But, of course, they do not. B. Vampyr thinks that if there is a chance the TD will say bid made stands, then go for it. Perfectly ethical. C. Bluejak says people make mistakes and pay the price. Same as Nige1(?)... that's interesting. So, if you do understand, Blackshoe, what do you think, because I respect your opinions.

It's OK Blackshoe, three others understood the question and replied to it.

Seems absolutely clearly MI. If you have an 'interesting' auction in a multi , you need to explain it properly.

The Laws seem completely clear. I wonder in what forms of the game, and at what levels, and in what competitions, the fortunate side would typically choose to take advantage of a mistaken mental translation of sign-off = 4M to sign-off = pass. I wonder if I will receive replies to the question I have put, rather than some noise about something else.

With our minor holdings, I think we have bid our hand to the full. If partner can't continue over 4H, I would be glad I didn't invent any bids.

I guess if the partner had a demonstrable (System Card) reason reason to ask, in context, there is a 50/50 chance you get away with the slam auction. Good luck.

If you are worried about online cheating, don't play online. The probability is extremely low, unless you already know the people that you think are cheating.

You will have noticed that I don't often post in these threads, though I do read them from time to time. But I wanted to better understand the current policy on UI (for personal reasons), so took part in the Ghestem thread, posted a problem I imagined I had faced and commented on the current thread that seemed, accidentally, eerily similar to the Ghestem thread. The message I took from the Ghestem thread was that ignoring or forgetting that partner failed to alert is simply not possible: you immediately, irrevocably, have UI. You must bend over backwards to avoid using UI: prattling, as I did, about probability doesn't cut it. But on this thread, it is argued that I can escape on the 'LAs' clause. Partner, the strong hand, driving this auction at least implicitly, tells me he prefers diamonds to my Hearts. But apparently I must forget his failure to alert, I must disregard it, I must bid on. a)Was he cue bidding? Well, let's just say that xfer break after 4♦ doesn't exist in our system, shall we. b)He can't have long diamonds? I have played against some hignly distinguished opponents, where a normal 2NT turned out to include a 6-card major not even a minor. My conclusion from this thread is that with this particularly virulent form of UI, the requirement is to bend over backwards, but not neceaarily very far. So there has a learning experience for me, disappointingly ambiguous, but sufficienct to guide my conduct - that is, take account of text book cases, particlarly from the Netherlands, and bid as I judge otherwise. By the way, I note with relief that Lamford's proposition that passing 5♦ on this hand would be use of UI has so far not met disagreement (hmm), but at least has not met agreement. Meanwhile I can vanish from attention for a while.

Well it turns out it's all very simple. One day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are clearly a 'cheat' if you don't pass. Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly). Do me a favour.

Don't you really, Lamford. Where are Bluejak and DBurn when you really need them.

So, Peachy, an impossible situation at 5♥. We are already playing in 5♦, the first C passable contract.

I guess for legalists the problem might be whether the laws related to UI mention class of player. I am not an expert, but I think they do not.

North's suit is Hearts. I fail to see the difference between this case and the recent case where the concensus was to pass 5♣ and not bid Hearts.

I think you mean South. Of course, this is about suggesting a question to South about the reason for his final pass. I guess if he says 'partner looked as if he would shoot me if I bid again' ...

Well let's put it differently. If 5♥ is incomprehensible, will South return to diamonds.