Another Strange Auction

[mtvesuvius]

As South, I held:

 

♠ A

♥ KQJTxxxx

♦ xx

♣ Qx

 

All Vul. East Deals.

 

East opened 2♦ which was alerted as "Flannery". Upon hearing his partner's alert, East made a face that only I noticed... What would you do, and is a director call neccesary? (Their card says Flannery). More to come on this soon...

[Fluffy]

you are toasted :), calling director won't do you any good, East has psyched you out of this hand.

 

Your best hope is to pass and let RHO bid diamonds so he clarifies the things. Or maybe pass 2♥.

[Hanoi5]

I'm not really sure, I think I'll pass to see what they get into and double or try to play 4♥ myself. If Flannery is in their card I have no resource against a 'psych'.

[ArtK78]

Pass for now. When and if 2♠ comes back to you, bid 4♥ and hope for the best.

[mtvesuvius]

I passed, and LHO bid 2♠, pass by partner, and RHO bid 3♦. What now?

[barmar]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid. And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert. I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

[mtvesuvius]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid. And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert. I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

[barmar]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid.  And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert.  I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors.

 

Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation.

[mtvesuvius]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid.  And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert.  I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors.

 

Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation.

East had 2♠, and it was not alerted... (This is ACBL :P)

[Lanor Fow]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid.  And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert.  I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors.

 

Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation.

I must respectfully disagree. Although he has to carefulyl avoid taking any advantage from the unautherised information of the alert and explination, he should alert and describe their agreements.

 

If their agreement is that 2♦ is flannery then he needs to alert or explain 2♠ given that 2♦ is flannery even though he will then need to conitnue bidding as if it is whatever he originally thought it was.

 

If, for example, 2 dimonds was alerted but not asked for or explained originally (which didn't awake him to his misbid for some reason, lets say he had bid it as a multi or simmilar alertable bid), but asked about later; if 2♦ being flannery woudl have chagned any of teh alerts, lack of alerts or explinations he had already given he must go back and correct them, and teh director should be immidiatly called (as in all MI situations). Of course he still needs to follow the UI laws (73C, 16A) with regards to his bidding.

 

 

Odd as this seems in some ways, I'm pretty sure thats according to the laws.

[mtvesuvius]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid.  And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert.  I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors.

 

Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation.

I must respectfully disagree. Although he has to carefulyl avoid taking any advantage from the unautherised information of the alert and explination, he should alert and describe their agreements.

 

If their agreement is that 2♦ is flannery then he needs to alert or explain 2♠ given that 2♦ is flannery even though he will then need to conitnue bidding as if it is whatever he originally thought it was.

 

If, for example, 2 dimonds was alerted but not asked for or explained originally (which didn't awake him to his misbid for some reason, lets say he had bid it as a multi or simmilar alertable bid), but asked about later; if 2♦ being flannery woudl have chagned any of teh alerts, lack of alerts or explinations he had already given he must go back and correct them, and teh director should be immidiatly called (as in all MI situations). Of course he still needs to follow the UI laws (73C, 16A) with regards to his bidding.

 

 

Odd as this seems in some ways, I'm pretty sure thats according to the laws.

If East intended his bid as weak, then east must treat 2♠ as NF, and not as a flannery response. The alert must be ignored. East should alert 2♠ as NF and pass; especially with 2♠. I beleive this is the UI law here...

[blackshoe]

Lanor is correct. In essence, the disclosure law (Law 40, and regulations made under that law regarding alerts) trumps the UI law, in the sense that you are required to correctly explain your agreements, even in the presence of UI, and even if doing so gives UI to partner. In this case, that means that you are allowed to be "woken up" to your actual agreements by partner's alert and explanation of 2♦ as Flannery, as far as your explanations are concerned, and must alert and explain his responses IAC with that agreement. IOW, you treat, for purposes of explanations to opponents, your partner's 2♠ bid as a Flannery response. At the same time, the fact that you didn't intend 2♦ as Flannery means that your partner's alert and explanation of that call is UI to you, and you must so treat it for purposes of selecting your subsequent calls.

 

Ignoring the alert is not an option. You cannot make a call which could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI you have, unless there is no logical alternative to that call. "I was always going to..." is not good enough. You can't make that determination if you ignore the alert. And if you explain 2♠ as if it were a response to a weak 2♦, or whatever you intended 2♦ to mean, you are giving MI to opponents, and you just can't knowingly do that, so again, you can't ignore partner's alert, as it is that which woke you up.

[mtvesuvius]

Lanor is correct. In essence, the disclosure law (Law 40, and regulations made under that law regarding alerts) trumps the UI law, in the sense that you are required to correctly explain your agreements, even in the presence of UI, and even if doing so gives UI to partner. In this case, that means that you are allowed to be "woken up" to your actual agreements by partner's alert and explanation of 2♦ as Flannery, as far as your explanations are concerned, and must alert and explain his responses IAC with that agreement. IOW, you treat, for purposes of explanations to opponents, your partner's 2♠ bid as a Flannery response. At the same time, the fact that you didn't intend 2♦ as Flannery means that your partner's alert and explanation of that call is UI to you, and you must so treat it for purposes of selecting your subsequent calls.

 

Ignoring the alert is not an option. You cannot make a call which could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI you have, unless there is no logical alternative to that call. "I was always going to..." is not good enough. You can't make that determination if you ignore the alert. And if you explain 2♠ as if it were a response to a weak 2♦, or whatever you intended 2♦ to mean, you are giving MI to opponents, and you just can't knowingly do that, so again, you can't ignore partner's alert, as it is that which woke you up.

Thanks, this makes more sense now.

[MFA]

As South, I held:

 

♠  A

♥  KQJTxxxx

♦  xx

♣  Qx

 

All Vul. East Deals.

 

East opened 2♦ which was alerted as "Flannery". Upon hearing his partner's alert, East made a face that only I noticed... What would you do, and is a director call neccesary? (Their card says Flannery). More to come on this soon...

Your situation is analogous to that after a bluff. You must try to tell partner that you want to play 4♥ in spite of their opening bid.

There will most likely be no later score corrections, because this was just a misbid. Calling the director anyway in a friendly matter after the play is a good idea to clarify things.

[Fluffy]

You are missing the point, I will gladly THANK EAST FOR CHEATING, and bid 4♥.

[mtvesuvius]

You are missing the point, I will gladly THANK EAST FOR CHEATING, and bid 4♥.

That's what I did, LHO doubled and I made 5 :blink:.

 

Thanks everyone for all your thoughts... They are much appreciaited.

[blackshoe]

You do that, Fluffy, and the director will throw you out of the tournament.

[Echognome]

You do that, Fluffy, and the director will throw you out of the tournament.

I think you are reading to much into his words. He means figuratively he will be thankful that his RHO has exposed his misbid/psych/whatever, so he can bid the game he always wanted to bid.

[elwood913]

I am a relatively new player and do not specialize in knowing the laws. Still, I think that the responses to this post are getting a fundamental issue wrong, so I thought I'd post.

 

Let me see if I understand the situation correctly. E/W do play flannery. E opened 2D mistakenly (he doesn't have a flannery opening, he forgot they played flannery, and he intended the 2D bid to have some other meaning). West correctly alerted and explained the 2D bid as flannery, in accordance with their agreements. This woke up E to his mistake. (E made a face, but since only S saw it it had no influence on the auction.) This occurs in ACBL-land.

 

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI. The palyer who misbid must alert and explain his partner's bids as responses to flannery, but does not need to continue to bid his hand as if he doesn't know the meaning of his partner's bids, or as if his own hand is something that it isn't. He may full well consider that he has made an error, and continue the auction taking that information and its likely effects on his partner into account, without penaly. If he can come up with some bids that "expose his misbid," then his partner is entitled to realize that the bid was a misbid and take all of the implications of that into account, all without penalty. (For example, if E simply continues to rebid diamonds, bids that have no place in the flannery system, his partner may correctlly determine that he actually has diamonds and act on this determination.)

 

The only possible place I see for UI here is if E tipped off his mistake to his partner in an unauthorized way - making a face his partner saw, or failing to alert his partner's bids as if they were responses to flannery. In that case W has UI. Also, alerts and explanations of future bids may be difficult and may have to be handled delicately. But there is not UI passed in a correct and proper explanation of your actual agreements -- it is simply not the case that E has any UI here.

[barmar]

Since I don't think 3♦ is a possible rebid in any normal Flannery auction, East has exposed his misbid.  And unless he has ♠ support, it doesn't seem like he's taken advantage of the UI from his partner's alert.  I think you can now bid some number of ♥ and it should be clear that it's natural.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything.

I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors.

 

Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation.

I must respectfully disagree. Although he has to carefulyl avoid taking any advantage from the unautherised information of the alert and explination, he should alert and describe their agreements.

 

If their agreement is that 2♦ is flannery then he needs to alert or explain 2♠ given that 2♦ is flannery even though he will then need to conitnue bidding as if it is whatever he originally thought it was.

 

If, for example, 2 dimonds was alerted but not asked for or explained originally (which didn't awake him to his misbid for some reason, lets say he had bid it as a multi or simmilar alertable bid), but asked about later; if 2♦ being flannery woudl have chagned any of teh alerts, lack of alerts or explinations he had already given he must go back and correct them, and teh director should be immidiatly called (as in all MI situations). Of course he still needs to follow the UI laws (73C, 16A) with regards to his bidding.

 

 

Odd as this seems in some ways, I'm pretty sure thats according to the laws.

My response assumed that their agreement was that 2♦ was weak, not Flannery, i.e. that the original alert was wrong. The original post didn't say who forgot their agreement. The face that East made could either have been embarassment at having forgotten that they play Flannery, or surprise or dismay that their partner thought they did.

 

I remember about a decade ago I was playing with a pick-up partner at an NABC, and he explained a bid as a convention I'd never even heard of, much less discussed with him. I was not as experienced at comporting myself properly as I hope I am now, and I blurted out "What!?"

[barmar]

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI. The palyer who misbid must alert and explain his partner's bids as responses to flannery, but does not need to continue to bid his hand as if he doesn't know the meaning of his partner's bids, or as if his own hand is something that it isn't.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Partner's alerts and explanations are UI to him. What makes this complicated is that he's allowed to be "partially" woken up. He should explain his partner's bids in accordance with their agreements, which he's now been reminded of, so that opponents get the same explanations as they would if they read his system notes (for the purposes of discussion, you can assume that the partnership has detailed system notes). But he must continue to bid his hand as if he hadn't heard the alert or explanation -- imagine that you're playing behind screens, or on the Internet with self-alerts.

 

Screens actually complicate things in a different way. Since you don't hear partner's alerts you never get woken up at all, and you end up giving your screenmate different explanations than the other screenmate. This has resulted in some difficult director calls and appeals in high level competitions.

[Lobowolf]

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.

I gave up directing a few years back for law school, and I haven't read the new revisions to the rules, but my recollection is that this is incorrect. Authorized information comes from legal calls and plays, and from the mannerisms/tone of voice/etc of the OPPONENTS. Unauthorized information comes from partner in the form of pretty much everything that isn't a legal bid or play, including comments, answers to questions, etc.

 

I could be mistaken...do you have a source for correct explanations being authorized information?

[MFA]

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.

Unfortunately, the rules are not like that.

Alerts and explanations from partner are UI, even if they are correct and according to the system. This is a problem when one has misbid in situations like this.

[Lobowolf]

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.  The palyer who misbid must alert and explain his partner's bids as responses to flannery, but does not need to continue to bid his hand as if he doesn't know the meaning of his partner's bids, or as if his own hand is something that it isn't.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Partner's alerts and explanations are UI to him. What makes this complicated is that he's allowed to be "partially" woken up. He should explain his partner's bids in accordance with their agreements, which he's now been reminded of, so that opponents get the same explanations as they would if they read his system notes (for the purposes of discussion, you can assume that the partnership has detailed system notes). But he must continue to bid his hand as if he hadn't heard the alert or explanation -- imagine that you're playing behind screens, or on the Internet with self-alerts.

 

Screens actually complicate things in a different way. Since you don't hear partner's alerts you never get woken up at all, and you end up giving your screenmate different explanations than the other screenmate. This has resulted in some difficult director calls and appeals in high level competitions.

Yes, partner can be "woken up" by a BID that suggests he got it wrong. For instance, if I got stoned one night and agreed to play natural NF 2-level responses, and we had the auction (partner opens):

1NT - (P) - 2H (intended by me as a transfer) - (P)

P - (balance) - ??

 

If partner explained (correctly) that 2H was to play in our system, I can't be awakened by his explanation, but his pass of my intended transfer would sure wake me up, and I'll take further action.

 

Having said that, though, there's still a UI issue...if partner had said "It's a transfer" (as I'd intended), and passed anyway, then presumably the reasonable inference is that partner psyched, and under such conditions, I wouldn't be bidding spades at the 3 level.

[blackshoe]

You do that, Fluffy, and the director will throw you out of the tournament.

I think you are reading to much into his words. He means figuratively he will be thankful that his RHO has exposed his misbid/psych/whatever, so he can bid the game he always wanted to bid.

Hm. That's fair enough. Sorry, Fluffy. :P