GreenMan

I imagine some might argue that partner's having remembered our agreements is now UI and we may not choose from among LAs any option made more attractive by this information. :rolleyes:

But what is the UI that cannot be ignored? Obviously from your previous post partner's inattention or impatience is UI, but that's trivially obvious; can there really be anything more? You've said a couple of times "There is still UI" regardless of partner's legal actions, but what is it? Should I have the Los Alamos National Laboratory of Hair Splitting on speed-dial?

In my example, obviously if LHO opens e.g. 1♦ instead of passing and partner overcalls 1♠, everyone would agree that I have AI that he has spades and values, and UI that he is not in the 8-11 range (or whatever distinguishes opening and overcalling hands in our partnership). The overcall and opening bid convey different, overlapping, sets of information, and the parts outside the intersection of those sets are UI. But I would think, and it seems others agree, that if the two calls convey the SAME set of information that the whole set is AI. But Ed, at least, seems to be arguing that some part of that set is UI, and I'm supposed to sort out exactly what it is, and thus what actions it suggests. So how does a player do that?

LHO deals, my partner opens 1♠ out of turn. RHO does not accept. LHO passes, partner opens 1♠. Is the fact that he has 12-21 HCP and 5+ spades AI or UI?

Once the same information is available as AI, such as from the legal play of a card, then the UI disappears. The interesting case is when the eventual legal play of the same card transmits *different* information, as others have pointed out. Then the information encoded in the original, illegal action is UI. But in the situation in the OP, no.

I'd say AI. Once it's played it's no longer a penalty card, and L50E2 doesn't apply.

I once got a book as a section prize called "Have I Got a Story for You" that was a collection of bridge anecdotes. Some were familiar, but others I hadn't seen before. Sadly I no longer have my copy.

Us eggheads sometimes call this "gamification," which is odd since bridge was already a game, but "playing at the club or a tournament" is sort of a meta-game. It's the same principle as badges or level-ups in other endeavors.

What Wyman said. I was on a semiregular team a few years ago that won a BCD Swiss pretty easily and decided it wasn't as much fun as placing in A/X would be. So with one exception we've always played up since then. (The exception was a surprisingly poor showing, which cemented our determination to play A/X -- if we're going to have a bad outing we need to be able to blame the strong competition. :rolleyes: )

I ♥ it ! I ♥♥♥ it!

Had it done against me at a local tournament last year. LHO opens 2♣ and rebids 2NT; RHO transfers into spades, bids 4♣ Gerber, doesn't like the answer, and signs off in 4♠. LHO decides not enough has been done and bids 4NT Blackwood. And if I told you even half of the post-mortem you would swear I was making it up.

Always take the action that allows you to blame your partner. (Or to put it another way, trust your partner to know what she/he is doing. And if things go awry, don't actually blame her or him.)

I had to look up the Lardner quote; I vaguely recalled it was a male author. As for Fields, "I always keep a supply of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy."

Indeed, the "'Shut up,' he explained" quote is actually by Ring Lardner. It is a fine piece of prose. My favorite Dorothy Parker story involved her animosity with Clair Boothe Luce. Once both of them arrived at a door at the same time, and after an awkward moment, Luce stepped back and said, "Age before beauty, my dear." Parker breezed past saying, "And pearls before swine."

Yeah, my perception may be biased by the last pair I saw doing it. Very much a mansplaining thing in that case.

That's participating. Anyone who does that at my table gets told so, by the director if necessary. It's usually men partnering their wives IME.

Agree it should be an option only. I once saw a very good player misclick ♦ instead of ♥ as opener and not realize it till two rounds later. (Distractions happen.) Undo to the rescue!

Your post does not have the upvote button on it.

"refute" is awfully strong language. You're assuming that double-dummy analysis maps onto single-dummy situations; needless to say that's up for debate ATM.

Bring me loose whiskey and strong women! --Warren Ellis

"If we had more guys like you, we'd have less guys like you." --Hawkeye Pierce, some episode of M*A*S*H

We must be talking about different auctions. In the one I'm hypothesizing, no one has bid 2♠.

I saw a board where something similar happened but the ruling was different. Second hand doubled, then (apparently) asked for undo, then called the director, but the auction continued. The director arrived and asked everyone to stop bidding, then rolled the auction back to second hand's call, at which point s/he passed. The director said that the withdrawn calls were AI for one side and UI for the other, and things went on unremarkably. Clearly there are kinks to work out. I like kenberg's suggestion for the software.

Probably worth discussing; under your existing agreements I'd expect X then 3♠ to indicate 3 spades in a 3244 or 31(54), offering 3NT if if pard has the hearts stopped, or 4♠ in a probable 4-3 fit, as alternatives to 5m (since it's matchpoints). This certainly seems workable and may be better than using it to show 4144, I don't know.

I suspect nearly all partnerships have no agreement about that bid beyond "Good hand suitable for 3NT in context," without a specific upper limit.